    [Senate Hearing 105-840]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 105-840

                       WILDLIFE CONSERVATION LEGISLATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JULY 7, 1998

                                   __________

                          S. 263, BEAR PROTECTION ACT

                  S. 361, RHINO AND TIGER PRODUCT LABELING ACT

                H.R. 2807, RHINO AND TIGER PRODUCT LABELING ACT

      H.R. 3113, RHINOCEROS AND TIGER CONSERVATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF
                                      1998

         S. 659, GREAT LAKES FISH AND WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT OF 1997

          S. 1970, NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT OF 1998

           S. 2094, FISH AND WILDLIFE REVENUE ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1998

    S. 2244, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM VOLUNTEER AND PARTNERSHIP ACT
                                    OF 1998

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    52-302cc                     WASHINGTON : 1998

    _______________________________________________________________________
                For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
    Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC
                                     20402

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                     JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
    JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia             MAX BAUCUS, Montana
    ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire          DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
    DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho               FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            HARRY REID, Nevada
    CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                BOB GRAHAM, Florida
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
    TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             BARBARA BOXER, California
    WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado               RON WYDEN, Oregon
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
                         Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
                   J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                  JULY 7, 1998

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado......     4
    Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana.........     3
    Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island     1
    Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida.........    25
    Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho......     6
        Letter from Stephen P. Mealey, director, Idaho Fish & Game...     7
        List, International Investments for Migratory Bird
          Conservation...............................................     8
    Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey    25
    Moynihan, Hon. Daniel Patrick, U.S. Senator from the State of New
      York...........................................................    24

                                   WITNESSES

    Crane, Thomas, program manager, Great Lakes Commission...........    45
        Prepared statement...........................................   109
    Hemley, Ginette, Vice President for Species Conservation, World
      Wildlife Fund..................................................    33
        Prepared statement...........................................    66
        Report, While Supplies Last, The Sale of Tiger and Other
          Endangered Species Medicines in North America, TRAFFIC
          North America..............................................    73
    Krival, Molly, past president, ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society.    41
        Prepared statement...........................................   105
    Pacelle, Wayne, senior vice president, the Humane Society of the
      United States..................................................    35
        Prepared statement...........................................    94
    Rogers, Hon. John, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
      Service........................................................    26
        Prepared statement...........................................    54
    Vehrs, Kristin, deputy director, American Zoo and Aquarium
      Association....................................................    38
        Prepared statement...........................................   101
    Taylor, Gary, legislative director, International Association of
      Fish and Wildlife Agencies.....................................    43
        Prepared statement...........................................   106

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Statements:
        Abraham, Hon. Spencer, U.S. Senator from the State of
          Michigan...................................................    49
        Beard, Dan, senior vice president, National Audubon Society..   112
        Daschle, Hon. Thomas A., U.S. Senator from the State of South
          Dakota.....................................................    48
        Glenn, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio........    48
        McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
          Kentucky...................................................    50
        Mills, David R., chairman of the Board of County
          Commissioners of Sarasota County, FL.......................   113
    Texts of bills:
        S. 263, Bear Protection Act..................................   116
        S. 361, Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act.................   122
        H.R. 2807, Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act..............   144
        H.R. 3113, Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Reauthorization
          Act........................................................   151
        S. 659, Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act........   153
        S. 1970, Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.........   126
        S. 2094, Fish and Wildlife Revenue Enhancement Act...........   139
        S. 2244, National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and
          Partnership Enhancement Act................................   166

                       WILDLIFE CONSERVATION LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1998

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m. in room
    406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of
    the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Chafee, Allard, and Baucus.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

        Senator Chafee. The committee will come to order.
        Good morning. We have a full order of business before us
    today. We will hear testimony on eight bills relating to the
    conservation of fish and wildlife. While all the bills seek to
    further conservation efforts here in the United States and
    abroad, they do so through a variety of mechanisms including
    financial, administrative, scientific, and enforcement
    programs.
        There is a broad spectrum of views on these bills. Some
    range from avid enthusiasm and support to stiff opposition. And
    the witnesses for today's hearings will cover this spectrum.
    Most of the witnesses will speak on several bills, given that
    their expertise covers different bills or related topics. I
    hope that the witnesses will also provide recommendations for
    changes that they believe will improve the bills.
        With the array of bills before us, I'm just going to spend
    a minute summarizing each of them. Now, I note that our order
    isn't the same as listed here on the sheet before us that the
    committee has, but this is the way they are going to come up,
    is my understanding.
        The first is S. 2094, the Fish and Wildlife Revenue
    Enhancement Act of 1998, introduced by Senator Allard. I am a
    cosponsor of that as are several others. This bill would
    authorize revenues from the sale of items derived from fish and
    wildlife to go to the Fish and Wildlife Service rather than
    into the general treasury. It would also allow the Fish and
    Wildlife Service to use the revenues to cover the cost of
    shipping, storing, and disposing of these items, which include:
    loans to schools, museums, zoos, and Native Americans for
    educational and religious purposes. The bill would not change
    existing law which prohibits the sale of items made from
    threatened or endangered species, marine mammals, or migratory
    birds.
        The second bill, S. 2244, the National Wildlife Refuge
    System Volunteer and Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998, was
    introduced by me and cosponsored by 14 of my colleagues. This
    bill promotes volunteer activities, individual donations,
    partnership programs, and education programs connected with the
    National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge System has a long
    history of relying on volunteers, with about 25,000 volunteers
    currently performing 20 percent of all the work done on the
    Refuge System.
        The third topic relates to protection of rhinos and tigers.
    There are three bills pending before the committee, two
    entitled the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act, S. 361 and
    H.R. 2807, and one, H.R. 3113, to reauthorize the Rhinoceros
    and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994.
        S. 361 was introduced by Senator Jeffords, and that would
    amend the Endangered Species Act to prohibit the import and
    export of any product labelled as containing species listed as
    endangered under the Endangered Species Act or listed in
    Appendix I of CITES. Senator Jeffords has expressed a desire to
    conform his bill to the House bill, which is H.R. 2807. This
    bill would amend the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act rather
    than the Endangered Species Act to prohibit the sale, import,
    and export of products intended for human consumption and
    claiming to contain rhino or tiger parts. In addition, H.R.
    2807 would provide for civil and criminal penalties for any
    person violating this prohibition, and for authority for
    forfeitures of prohibited products.
        H.R. 3113 would reauthorize the Rhinoceros and Tiger
    Conservation Act of 1994 through 2004 at the current level of
    $10 million a year. The current authorization expires in the
    year 2000.
        The fourth topic is S. 263, the Bear Protection Act,
    introduced by Senator McConnell and cosponsored by 52 Senators.
    This would prohibit imports and exports of bear viscera and
    products that contain or claim to contain bear viscera. It
    would also prohibit the sale and purchase or transportation in
    interstate commerce of such products or viscera.
        The fifth topic is S. 1970, the Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Act of 1998, introduced by Senator Abraham. This
    would require the Secretary of Interior to establish a program
    to provide financial assistance for projects to promote the
    conservation of neotropical migratory birds in Latin America
    and the Caribbean. Federal funds would not exceed 33 percent.
    At least 50 percent of the non-Federal share would have to be
    in cash.
        The last bill is S. 659, the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
    Restoration Act of 1997, introduced by Senator Glenn. It would
    provide authority to implement recommendations of the Great
    Lakes Fishery Restoration and Study which was a Report to
    Congress. This study was mandated by Congress in 1990 in an
    effort to protect and restore the Great Lakes ecosystem. The
    bill would establish matching grants, with 25 percent of the
    cost of a project to be paid by non-Federal sources.
        We have three panels. The first panel will be Deputy
    Director of Fish and Wildlife, Mr. Rogers, who will speak on
    all the bills. The second panel will be three conservation
    organizations who will speak to bear protection, rhino and
    tiger bills, and the revenue enhancement bill. The third panel
    consists of witnesses who have a special interest in one or
    more of the bills, including the Bear Protection Act, the
    Refuge Volunteers bill, and the Great Lakes bills.
        We also have written testimony from Senator Abraham on his
    bill, and from Senator McConnell and Senator Glenn on their
    bills.
        So I thank everybody for being here.
        Senator Baucus.
        Senator Baucus. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.
    Chairman, good to see you.
        Senator Chafee. Good morning. You know that America was
    made great by men and women that got up early.
        Senator Baucus. That is true.
        [Laughter.]

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
                            STATE OF MONTANA

        Senator Baucus. There are many variations on that theme.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing.
    I must say that although the public tends to focus more and the
    press tends to focus more on major bills, like the highway
    bill, Superfund, or the Endangered Species Act, much of the
    work that this committee, as you know, has accomplished is
    through smaller, yet in many ways equally important, bills like
    those that are the subject of today's hearing.
        A common thread that runs through several of these bills is
    partnership--partnerships with volunteers, nonprofit
    organizations, States and various Federal agencies, and other
    organizations. By building on existing legislation, working
    cooperatively with volunteer groups, and providing some seed
    money to get things started in the right direction, these bills
    will help to conserve some of our most endangered fish and
    wildlife species, both here in the United States and abroad.
        And rather than elaborate on the bills, Mr. Chairman, I'd
    like to highlight a bill that I worked on with you and the
    Administration prior to its introduction; that is S. 2244, the
    National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Partnership
    Enhancement Act of 1998.
        The Wildlife Refuge System is a sanctuary for our Nation's
    fish and wildlife, many species of which are threatened or
    endangered. It is a sanctuary for people, too, many of whom
    visit our refuges each year. To ensure that those refuges are
    around for future generations of Americans, we recently enacted
    legislation to guide the management of the National Wildlife
    Refuge System. But even improved management cannot make up for
    lack of money.
        One way to stretch tight Federal dollars is through the use
    of volunteers and partnerships with nonprofit organizations,
    ordinary citizens in Montana and elsewhere who care enough
    about fish and wildlife to contribute their time and their
    expertise to their local refuge. Interest has been expressed
    among local citizens and States like Montana in doing what they
    can to protect our national resources.
        In fact, I might tell you, Mr. Chairman, a few years ago I
    worked with a group of volunteers on the Blackfoot River, a
    group called Blackfoot Challenge. Many of us in Congress have
    district workdays; I had my workday in helping the folks at
    Blackfoot Challenge. People from all around the area, ranchers,
    people in the city, Fish and Wildlife Service personnel, Trout
    Unlimited, all groups that you would think would be a part of
    something like this, we all worked together on a volunteer
    basis to help change the channel of the stream so that bull
    trout could more likely spawn and it would help reduce the
    likelihood that bull trout would later be endangered. It was a
    wonderful effort.
        It was all volunteers. This bill and other bills that are
    up today will help encourage even more of that. In fact, they
    did this work because government agencies weren't doing it.
    There is just too much jurisdictional pride among the various
    agencies they wouldn't give in to the other and work together.
    So local folks locally did it themselves because the agencies
    weren't.
        Bills like this one I think will help to encourage
    volunteers to take a more active role in improving our wildlife
    refuges. This bill would allow the Secretary of Interior to
    work with outside organizations to undertake conservation and
    education projects, very similar to what I was describing. It
    would also authorize the Secretary to develop refuge education
    programs, and provide for staff to help coordinate volunteer
    activities.
        By helping volunteers to work with the United States Fish
    and Wildlife Service to improve our wildlife refuges, this bill
    will not only benefit fish and wildlife, it will also enhance
    the outdoor recreation and education experience for thousands
    of visitors.
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good bill, one
    that deserves our support and I expect it to be passed. After
    today's hearing, I look forward to working with you, Mr.
    Chairman, as well as other members of the committee to address
    any outstanding concerns regarding this bill or with respect to
    any of the others that are the subject of today's hearing.
    Thank you.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator. I would just
    say we all share your enthusiasm for our wildlife refuges. I
    just have some facts here. We have 513 National Wildlife
    Refuges and they encompass 93 million acres. So it's really a
    big operation.
        Senator Allard, you've got a good bill here. If you'd like
    to offer some comments, now is the time.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
                           STATE OF COLORADO

        Senator Allard. I would, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to
    thank you for your interest in a number of these bills, one of
    which I'm a sponsor of and a couple of which I'm a cosponsor
    on. I'm sponsoring S. 2094, the Fish and Wildlife Revenue
    Enhancement Act of 1998; cosponsor on your bill, S. 2244, the
    National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Partnership
    Enhancement Act of 1998; and also a cosponsor on S. 1970, the
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1998. I want to
    compliment you for your interest in this subject matter, and I
    would also say that I look forward to continuing to work with
    both you and your staff on these pieces of legislation,
    particularly S. 2094.
        Over the July 4 break, I had an opportunity to visit the
    facility where there is a holding of repository animals. These
    are wildlife products that have been turned over, forfeited to
    the Federal Government. That facility is in Rocky Mountain
    Arsenal in Colorado. I was especially pleased with what I saw
    there at the repository. I think they need some help, and the
    purpose of my bill is to enhance the program.
        There are three parts to the program. One is the holding of
    products that were forfeited, or were brought into the country
    illegally. Some of these products, for example, are ostrich
    skins. Ostriches are raised naturally in this country and
    ostriches are raised in other countries, but the fact is that
    they violated a law bringing the materials in. They're not an
    endangered species, but the importers violated the law. A
    number of items are sea shells and those kinds of things that
    certainly aren't endangered but do have value.
        The bill would allow the Government to put those things up
    for sale and generate revenue to enhance the storage and
    disposition of many of the rare products. I think it is
    important that we have this program to do that. Also, I'm
    working with your staff on changing current law so that we make
    sure that nothing that's an endangered species is sold. We
    don't want to encourage the merchandizing of endangered
    species. None of us want to see that happen.
        Another part of the program is the National Eagle
    Repository. The Native Americans of this country for cultural
    and religious purposes use the eagles, for example, or parts of
    the eagles for their cultural and religious ceremonies. Many of
    these eagles that I saw that were there were those that had
    died in the wild for one reason or another and had been picked
    up and brought in. Many Native Americans need the feathers. The
    eagle feathers are processed and then made available to the
    Native Americans. It is very important to the Indian tribes of
    this country, and a very vital program, and this money would
    help that.
        The third aspect of the program, which I thought was
    perhaps the most important part, was the educational goals and
    programs. People learn that they can't go overseas and buy
    wildlife products and expect to bring them into this country. I
    think the educational program needs to be extended so that more
    Americans traveling overseas don't get themselves into trouble
    because of ignorance of the law. They don't realize that they
    can't bring those items into the country. I think we will save
    the lives of a lot of wildlife in foreign countries, a lot of
    endangered species overseas. It is a matter of education and
    teaching Americans abroad and teaching American school children
    the concepts and the principles of conservation.
        I was very excited about the program. Again, I look forward
    to working with you in all these particular pieces of
    legislation, particularly this piece, which I spent some time
    in making myself familiar with the program. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you. I want to again thank you for
    your work on the enhancement provision that you discussed.
        Mr. Rogers, if you would come to the table, please. This is
    Mr. John Rogers, the Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service.
        We have a vote, Mr. Rogers, scheduled, whether it will
    occur or not at the time, but it is scheduled for 9:30. So if
    you would bear that in mind in your testimony.
        I also have a number of statements by committee members to
    place into the record.
        [The statements of Senators Kempthorne, Moynihan,
    Lautenberg, and Graham follow:]
         Prepared Statement of Hon. Dirk Kempthorne, U.S. Senator from
                               the State of Idaho
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Although I will not have comments on
    every bill before us this morning, I want to emphasize that these bills
    represent important issues in Fish and Wildlife Conservation.
        S. 361, and H.R. 2807, two versions of the Rhino and Tiger Product
    Labeling Act amend the Endangered Species Act to make certain labeling
    of products a criminal act. I am concerned about these provisions and
    concerned that these bills may be placing the administration of justice
    above the doing of justice.
        Under S. 361 specifically, if a person labels a product as
    containing any endangered or threatened species, this provision would
    make that labeling a criminal act regardless of the content of the
    package, and regardless of whether the package actually contains parts
    or products derived from the endangered or threatened species. The
    penalties for such labeling are enormous, potentially including
    confiscation of property and considerable fines. The purpose of the
    provision is to discourage trade in these threatened or endangered
    species. They say that it is impossible to test all packaging and that
    continuing to allow such product labeling does not sufficiently
    discourage trade in endangered and threatened species. Yet I fear that
    the means to this admirable end may be the discouragement of First
    Amendment rights.
        I remember just a few years ago when the Spotted Owl debate raged
    on, a small business in the Pacific Northwest relabeled some cans of
    potted meat product as containing Spotted Owl, a listed species.
    ``Spotted Owl Helper'' was packaged claiming to contain Spotted Owl.
    This humorous attempt to parody a critical habitat designation designed
    to end logging in the Pacific Northwest would become a criminal act
    under this law. Why?
        During my recent negotiations on the Endangered Species Recovery
    Act this provision was suggested by the Minority and rejected by the
    Majority. If passed, the Justice Department might choose to use this
    provision to stamp out criticism of executive branch policies. Innocent
    citizens will be made criminals. If this is not the result of this
    provision then we are on the verge of implicitly agreeing to
    legislation which is overly broad.
        The House version of this bill (H.R. 2807), is preferable only in
    that it applies to a smaller subset of species. But the underlying
    problem is the same. Mere speech should not be a criminal act. Neither
    bill contains any exemptions. I see them as prohibitions against free
    speech. I fear that once this type of legislation is made law, without
    any of the protections this Congress could provide that the Justice
    Department will then seek a broader statute for all endangered and
    threatened species.
        The problem that I have with this bill is that it has been proposed
    for the purpose of stopping poaching of tigers and rhinos in their
    native habitats to prevent their being sold in the United States as
    natural remedies for arthritis and other ailments. I want to make it
    clear that I am very much in favor of stopping such poaching. But, I
    see nothing coming of this bill except criminal confusion. Let's work
    together to find better ways of stopping poaching.
        Senator Allard has recognized in S. 2094, the Fish and Wildlife
    Revenue Enhancement Act, that the Federal Government stores and
    disposes of specimens of protected species that have been abandoned or
    forfeited at our ports. These materials are distributed by the
    Government to qualified recipients for educational and scientific uses,
    and for religious purposes of Native Americans. Although the remaining
    material may be sold if it is not from an endangered or threatened
    species, the current law does not allow any revenue generated from
    sales to manage the storage and sales of these materials. Senator
    Allard's bill will allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to pay shipping,
    storage, appraisal, and other disposal costs from sale of these items.
    Because this will make the Government's job easier, and allow disposal
    rather than perpetual storage, I have chosen to cosponsor this bill.
        Senator McConnell has introduced S. 263, the Bear Protection Act
    which would make the export of bear gall bladders and other tissues an
    illegal act under Federal law. Mr. Chairman, I am informed that the
    Black Bear populations in the United States are growing practically
    everywhere within their native range. The grizzly bear, a species
    listed under the Endangered Species Act is already protected by Federal
    law.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record this letter
    from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game which clearly states that
    the poaching of Black Bear parts for sale is not a problem in my State.
    I believe that we will hear testimony from witnesses today that
    suggests similar information is available throughout the range of the
    species.
        I am looking forward to the testimony on S. 2244, National Wildlife
    Refuge System Volunteer and Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998. I was
    pleased to be able to cosponsor this bill with you, Mr. Chairman.
        Finally, I am very pleased to see continued attention being given
    to the conservation of our native birds. The National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation which we reauthorized recently in this committee has
    leveraged $5.4 million into nearly $14.5 million for birds throughout
    the American tropics. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter this list of
    AID [Agency for International Development] and non-AID funded projects
    of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation into the record. I
    especially want to hear the testimony on S. 1970, the Neotropical
    Migratory Bird Conservation Act to see how it fits into the programs we
    have already established.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman for scheduling this hearing. I look forward
    to hearing the testimony of the witnesses.
                                     ______

                                             Idaho Fish & Game,
                                              Boise, ID, June 30, 1998.
    Senator Dirk Kempthorne,
    U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Kempthorne: In response to your recent letter
    concerning bear viscera, I offer the following information:
        Idaho does allow the sale of non-edible portions of legally taken
    big game animals, including black bear, providing the taker makes a
    report of such sale to the Department of Fish and Game.
        We have not been able to substantiate major problems with efforts
    to poach bear simply for their parts in Idaho. I am aware this problem
    exists in other States and countries, but after conducting several
    special undercover operations, the indication is that there is no major
    problem with illegal commercial bear parts poaching in Idaho that we
    can prove. We do have considerable problems with illegally outfitted
    hunts for bear, but that is another type of violation altogether.
        During the last two years we have made 15 arrests and given 37
    warnings for bear violations consisting of a variety of illegal acts,
    including technical violations such as improper tagging or transport,
    but there have been no citations or arrests for illegal sale of bears
    or their parts. We also made 10 observations of incidents that were
    evidence of illegal harvest. Our legal harvest for this period was
    2,836 bears. This means that the total average annual violations rate
    is about 2 percent for bear. We normally record a total rate of all
    violations of about 6 percent.
        The average annual number of legal sales of bear parts is
    approximately 180 transactions. The most common types of parts sold are
    gall bladders from legally-taken bear. Generally, this is the only part
    of the viscera sold in Idaho. The only time we actually determined the
    number of gall bladders sold, it was around 80 annually. The average
    price paid for gall bladders in Idaho is approximately $30. This would
    mean that from a purely economic standpoint, bear hunters would be
    denied about $2,400 in legal revenue. What the dealers would realize in
    profits is unknown since, because of competition, they generally keep
    that information confidential.
        The bear population in Idaho is generally stable, doing well, and
    does seem to be increasing in some areas. We have no evidence that
    harvest, legal or illegal, is affecting the population.
        If it can be substantiated that such a Federal law as S. 263 will
    actually stop or limit illegal interstate poaching and
    commercialization of bears, then we wholeheartedly support it. However,
    our present Idaho laws and regulations make illegal the sale of bear
    parts from other States that prohibit such sale, so my question would
    simply be ``Does S. 263 provide additional authority or protection that
    we don't already have in place?''
        The Idaho Department of Fish & Game is totally opposed to illegal
    commercialization of wildlife and has pursued enhanced penalties in the
    Idaho legislature for such activities. Our Enforcement Bureau would
    certainly be interested in any information any State may have about
    illegal ``laundering'' of bear parts, since this activity is already
    illegal in Idaho. To date, we have heard rumors of such activity, but
    no one seems to be able to provide any significant evidence. The
    closest we had was intercepting a shipment of gall bladders that turned
    out to be not bear, but domestic pig.
        I hope this provides you with useful information. If you need
    anything further, please contact me.
                Sincerely,
                                             Stephen P. Mealey,
                                                              Director.

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Senator from
                             the State of New York
        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to voice my support for S. 659, the
    Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act. The unique partnerships
    established by this Act greatly benefit the Great Lakes region of the
    United States.
        In 1990 I cosponsored the original legislation which directed the
    United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) to produce a
    comprehensive study of the status, assessment, management, and
    restoration needs of the fishery resources of the Great Lakes Basin.
    Completion of the study required a high degree of cooperation and
    coordination between Federal, State, Tribal, and international
    agencies.
        The Service issued the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration
    Study in 1995. In the study, the Service specifies 32 ``high priority''
    policy recommendations designed to protect the Great Lakes ecosystem.
    For example, the Service identifies best practices to prevent the
    introduction of nonindigenous species--species which, like the zebra
    mussel and purple loostrife, can disrupt the equilibrium of native
    ecosystems. Other recommendations address the problems of contaminated
    sediments and their impacts on wildlife and human health.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service was charged by Congress to assess the
    needs of the Great Lakes ecosystems, and to produce policy
    recommendations. The task before us now is to ensure that these policy
    recommendations are put into action. The reauthorizing legislation
    before us today directs the agency to carry out three tasks. First, the
    Service must establish a committee to review proposals which implement
    the highest priority recommendations of the Fishery Restoration Study.
    Those proposals which are selected by the committee will be funded
    through a competitive grant process. Second, the bill funds three U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service offices located within the Great Lakes Basin.
    These divisions would continue to coordinate interagency efforts to
    improve the health of the region. Third, the Act requires the Service
    to report to Congress on its progress in implementing the
    recommendations of the original Study.
        The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act is a truly
    innovative piece of legislation. Too few laws enacted by this body
    recognize the complexity of the ecosystems we regulate, and few
    coordinate the diverse skills of the agencies which share in the
    stewardship of these valuable resources. I hope that my colleagues will
    join me in lending their unqualified support to this legislation.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the
                              State of New Jersey
        As a cosponsor of S. 263, the Bear Protection Act, I would like to
    reiterate my support for this important legislation that would provide
    the domestic bear population with needed protection before they are
    destroyed by commercial trade.
        Numerous studies on the bear parts trade have concluded that, as a
    result of the continuing decline of Asian bear populations, trade in
    the gallbladders of North American bears species for medicinal use is
    on the rise. This fact is confirmed by wildlife enforcement officials
    who note that poaching of North American black bears is increasing,
    largely as a result of growing demand for bear gallbladders. In my home
    State, wildlife officials have found the carcasses of black bears with
    their gallbladders and paws removed. Several years ago, Pennsylvania
    conservation officers working undercover and in cooperation with New
    Jersey law enforcement officers were able to purchase numerous
    gallbladders brought into the State by Pennsylvanians intent on selling
    them in New Jersey.
        Trade in black bears and their parts is already known to occur
    throughout the species' range. According to a report by the World
    Wildlife Fund and TRAFFIC North America, wildlife agencies in the
    United States and Canada indicate that there already exist a well-
    developed market for the parts of the American black bear, and evidence
    of well-developed networks of hunters, middlemen and retailers, only
    suggest that the trade is likely to continue and expand in the future.
    I believe that the Bear Protection Act would give State and Federal law
    enforcement agencies a much needed tool to deter further illegal
    commercialization of black bear products, while not interfering with
    States' right to manage their resident bear populations as they see
    fit. I strongly support the bill and urge my colleagues to report it
    out of committee.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Graham, U.S. Senator from
                              the State of Florida
        Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to join my colleague Senator
    McConnell and 52 other cosponsoring Senators in supporting the Bear
    Protection Act. I fully support this Act and believe that it is key to
    ensuring the long-term viability of the world's eight bear species and,
    specifically, to protect the health of American bears.
        I feel that this legislation is worthy of support for many reasons.
    First, it will ensure that the United States does not contribute to the
    disastrous trade in bear parts by prohibiting the importation and
    exportation of U.S. bear viscera. The Bear Protection Act will also
    make it illegal for a person to sell, barter, offer to sell or barter
    bear viscera, in interstate or foreign commerce. Enforcement provisions
    of this statute fall under U.S. Lacey Act of 1981 that will authorize
    the imposition of civil and criminal penalties, permit the forfeiture
    of wildlife contraband, and authorize rewards to persons providing
    information leading to arrests, criminal convictions, or civil penalty
    assessments.
        The Bear Protection Act will also promote international cooperation
    to protect bears by requiring that the United States Trade
    Representatives and the Secretary of the Interior work with the
    representatives of the leading importing, exporting, and consuming
    countries of bear viscera to establish a coordinated strategy to end
    this detrimental trade. It will allow Congress to remain involved and
    retain oversight of progress by requiring an annual report.
        The Bear Protection Act's provisions will protect America's bears
    by preventing exploitation and potential population decimation by
    poachers supplying the widespread demand for valuable bear parts.
    Although bear populations in the United States are currently thriving,
    the dramatic decline of bear populations outside the United States
    could lead poachers to turn to American bears to fill the increasing
    demand for bear viscera.
        In Florida, the unique black bear subspecies Ursus americanus
    floridanus, is considered threatened with extinction. At one time,
    black bears in Florida and parts of Southern Georgia and Alabama
    numbered more that 12,000. Florida's bears were found in every part of
    the State, including the Florida keys. Now, fewer than 1,500 bears
    remain in scattered and isolated populations, lee than 20 percent of
    the bears' historic range. Development and loss of habitat are the main
    threats to the survival of the species. However, illegal harvest of
    bears and the existing market for bear galls are a pressing problem in
    the State of Florida and are a concern for the wildlife law enforcement
    community.
        In Florida, it is illegal to sell the carcasses or parts of black
    bears. When Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Officers began
    encountering individuals selling bear carcasses and parts, the alleged
    offenders would often identify them as coming from other species of
    bears in order to circumvent the law. To combat this problem of
    enforcement, it became obvious that legislative modifications were
    necessary. In 1994 the law was modified to make it illegal to sell any
    bear carcass or parts from any species of bear. This law made
    enforcement much easier and more effective for our officers.
        On a national level, The Bear Protection Act would allow U.S. law
    enforcement officials to address the poaching of bears and the sale of
    their parts in an effective manner. As long as some States legally
    permit the sale of bear parts, poachers will be able to exploit these
    animals for profit through these States. The outright ban on trade,
    sale, or barter of bear viscera will close these existing enforcement
    and jurisdictional loopholes that exist as a result of a patchwork of
    State laws.
        The Bear Protection Act will establish national guidelines for
    trade in bear parts, but will not weaken any existing State laws that
    have been instituted to deal with this issue. The prohibitions in the
    Bear Protection Act are not as restrictive as Florida Law; however,
    such stringent restrictions may not be as essential on a nationwide
    basis for States who do not have threatened species. Moreover, this
    legislation is a step in the right direction to allow the continued
    harvest of bears where appropriate and specifically addresses the issue
    of the sale of bear viscera, which is not an integral part of bear
    hunting by legitimate sport hunters.

            STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ROGERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
             U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a
    pleasure to be here this morning. As you noted earlier, I have
    a rather extensive statement that I would like submitted for
    the record. I will summarize it here. But with seven bills to
    be considered, I may take a little longer than the standard
    time, with your indulgence.
        Senator Chafee. You go ahead.
        Mr. Rogers. First, I'd like to begin with S. 2094, the
    Eagle Repository bill, just summarized by Senator Allard. The
    Service strongly supports S. 2094. Enactment of this bill will
    allow more efficient use of the proceeds received from the sale
    of abandoned or forfeited wildlife parts and products. I want
    to stress, as Senator Allard mentioned, that only products
    which could legally be imported into the United States would be
    available for sale under this bill.
        These items were voluntarily abandoned or they were
    forfeited. I also want to stress that these salable products do
    not include endangered or threatened species, migratory birds,
    marine mammals, or other species listed under Appendix I of
    Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species.
        Currently, there are approximately 450,000 wildlife items
    of the National Wildlife Property Repository near Denver.
        Senator Chafee. Are these all in one central spot, in
    Denver?
        Mr. Rogers. That's correct. There are some in law
    enforcement offices around the country, but the overwhelming
    bulk of them is at the repository.
        The Service is authorized to dispose of these items,
    including by gift, sale, loan, or destruction. But our priority
    is to donate or loan these to scientific and educational
    institutions. Of the estimated 450,000 abandoned or forfeited
    wildlife items, some 200,000 are surplus to the needs of
    scientific and educational programs and could legally be sold
    at auction. We estimate that an auction of these backlogged
    forfeited and abandoned items would generate more than $1
    million in proceeds.
        Under S. 2094, we would be able to use the proceeds of the
    already allowed sales of abandoned and forfeited fish and
    wildlife and plants to pay the costs associated with shipping,
    storage, inventory, security, appraisal of these items, and
    also pay the cost associated with auctions. It would also allow
    the Fish and Wildlife Service to use these proceeds to pay for
    processing and shipping of eagles and other migratory birds to
    Native Americans for religious purposes.
        Mr. Chairman, we believe this bill, if enacted, would allow
    us to more efficiently operate two important programs--the
    distribution of wildlife property to scientific and educational
    institutions, and the distribution of eagles and other
    migratory birds to Native Americans for religious purposes.
        Next, I would like to address S. 2244, the National
    Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Partnership Enhancement
    Act. We certainly appreciate your leadership and the leadership
    of Senator Baucus in bringing us to this point.
        As you know, the National Wildlife Refuge System
    Improvement Act strengthened the legal underpinnings of the
    system and emphasizes public participation in its operation.
    The volunteer bill before the committee today increases that
    emphasis on participation and provides direction for the
    Service's volunteers and its partnership organizations.
        Our volunteers play a vital role in helping to fulfill our
    mission of conserving, protecting, and enhancing America's fish
    and wildlife and their habitats. Volunteers provide essential
    services that Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the
    resources or staff to provide. The number of our volunteers has
    increased from 4,200 in 1982 to more than 25,000 in 1996.
    Commensurate with this increase in individuals, volunteer hours
    have also increased from 128,000 to more than 1 million in
    1996.
        S. 2244 will further encourage the use of volunteers to
    assist the Service in the management of our National Wildlife
    Refuges. It will facilitate partnerships between the Service
    and non-Federal entities, and it will promote public awareness
    of the resources of the Refuge System and public participant in
    the conservation of those resources. It will also encourage
    donations and other contributions by persons and organizations
    to individual refuges and the Refuge System.
        The bill also affirms our authority for cost-share
    projects, which to date have been authorized in annual
    appropriation bills. The concept of matching funds is very
    effective in stimulating the donation of funds or in-kind
    services to achieve the goal of improving a refuge. Permanent
    authorization and direction could help this program grow beyond
    its current $3.3 million size, thus leveraging available funds.
        S. 2244 would also establish a 3-year pilot program to test
    the effects of locating a volunteer coordinator at between two
    and 20 selected refuges. The bill further enhances our
    volunteer capability by authorizing the establishment of a
    senior volunteer corps. Also, S. 2244 provides guidance for our
    refuge educational programs which could lead to both an
    expansion of our efforts and greater community involvement in
    these efforts.
        I'll next address H.R. 3113, authorization of the
    Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994, also with its
    companions S. 361 and H.R. 2807, the House and Senate bills for
    the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act.
        The Department strongly supports the reauthorization of the
    Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act through the year 2004, as
    passed by the House on March 30, 1998.
        Senator Chafee. Now wait. Which one is that? I get mixed
    up. We've got three different bills here on that.
        Mr. Rogers. H.R. 3113 is the basic underlying
    reauthorization act.
        Senator Chafee. That has passed the House, and that's the
    one you support.
        Mr. Rogers. Correct. And S. 361 is the Senate version, as
    you just mentioned, offered by Mr. Jeffords, for the Labeling
    Act, and H.R. 2807 is the House-passed version of the Labeling
    Act.
        Senator Chafee. Now which one are you for of those two?
        Mr. Rogers. The House version of the Labeling Act. However,
    as you mentioned, Senator Jeffords has changed his position on
    S. 361, so we could also support S. 361.
        Senator Chafee. OK.
        Mr. Rogers. The need for increased action is highlighted by
    the desperate situation facing our world's remaining tiger and
    rhino populations. Reauthorization of the Rhino and Tiger
    Conservation Act will send a strong message that the American
    people care deeply about these resources, and it will
    demonstrate a commitment by the U.S. Government to provide
    sufficient funding and continued support to the conservation of
    these key representatives of Asian and African fauna.
        We do seek some technical amendments with our fiscal year
    1999 budget proposal to consolidate the African elephant, Asian
    elephant, and rhino and tiger conservation funds under a multi-
    species conservation fund.
        However, conservation assistance is only half of the job.
    In order to break the cycle of poaching and illegal trade that
    has devastated so many rhino and tiger populations, we must
    also work to break the supply lines and remove rhino and tiger
    products from the marketplace. Unfortunately, not all the
    problems with the trade in rhino and tiger parts is in Asia.
    There is also a thriving trade in medicines which are at least
    labeled as containing rhino and tiger parts in traditional
    medicine shops in most cities having large Asian communities.
        And we in the United States are not exempt from this
    problem. Every year the Service wildlife inspectors all over
    the country routinely encounter shipments containing wildlife
    products labeled as containing protected species parts,
    especially rhino and tiger. Once these products reach the
    United States, even when their labels blatantly claim that they
    contain rhino and tiger parts, the burden of proof is still on
    the Fish and Wildlife Service to demonstrate conclusively and
    scientifically that those products in fact contain those
    products.
        As you might expect, this is an expensive process, and
    forensic experts estimate a cost of up to $100,000 to develop a
    DNA test to identify any particular group of wildlife, such as
    in this case all rhinos or all tigers, and the process then
    only works if the DNA markers have not been destroyed in the
    compounding process. For example, if a product purported to
    contain tiger bone has been treated to high temperatures during
    compounding, a DNA analysis test might not be conclusive.
        Given these results, seized items must often be returned to
    the importer because no violation of U.S. law can be shown.
    Some ports have chosen not to seize tiger bone products because
    the burden of proof with respect to content has made
    enforcement so difficult. As a result, products claiming to
    contain tiger and rhino continue to be readily available and
    continue to stimulate demand and feed a market that ultimately
    depends on killing of these critically endangered species.
        H.R. 2807, the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act, would
    close this major gap in our existing laws by adding new
    criminal prohibitions to the existing Act. The Administration
    strongly supports this new measure which is designed to
    prohibit the importation and sale of products that claim to
    contain rhino horn or tiger products. The proposed prohibition
    on import and export of such products will allow us to seize
    these substances at U.S. ports of entry and demand their
    immediate forfeiture. And the prohibition on sale of these
    products will help keep stockpiles which are already in this
    country off the shelves.
        The bill is fully in keeping with an international
    consensus on the need for such legislation in every country.
    Recognizing that trade in rhino and tiger medicines is a global
    problem, the CITES conference of the parties has adopted a
    series of resolutions calling on all countries to adopt new
    legislation to control this trade.
        Now let me address S. 263, the Bear Protection Act. S. 263
    is intended to prevent American black bear populations from
    becoming harmed as a result of the demand for bear viscera
    which is used in certain Asian medicinal products.
        Although significant illegal trade in Asiatic species of
    bear exists primarily to supply the Asiatic medicinal market,
    the Service does not have evidence to support the claim that
    bears in the United States are threatened by the demand for
    bear viscera. With the exception of black bear populations in
    Florida and Louisiana, bear populations in the United States
    and Canada are generally increasing, due in large part to the
    effective wildlife management activities carried out by the
    States.
        The Service believes that bears in the United States have
    been adequately protected to date, and the bill addresses an
    issue which has not been a major resource problem. If the
    committee moves forward, however, with S. 263, there are some
    technical/legal concerns relating to references to the Lacey
    Act, as set forth in my formal statement, that should be
    addressed prior to final passage.
        The next bill is S. 1970, the Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Act of 1998. We support S. 1970 and wish to thank
    Senator Abraham for his sponsorship of the act.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service, through four bilateral
    treaties, has responsibility for maintaining healthy
    populations of some 778 species of migratory nongame birds and
    58 species of migratory game birds, approximately 350 species
    of which--the so-called neotropical migrants--migrate between
    Latin America, the Caribbean, and North America.
        The greatest challenge facing us as migratory bird managers
    is to halt the declines of many of these species. The decline
    is due, in part, to major habitat destruction and degradation.
    S. 1970 can be a major step toward halting and even reversing
    this trend.
        Again, we do, however, have several recommended changes
    that would make this initiative even more effective. These
    include adding a North American component to include both U.S.-
    based as well as Latin American- and Caribbean-based products
    so that the conservation benefits will be maximized in both the
    breeding, the wintering, and the migration areas. Also, we
    would like to increase the authorized appropriation from $4
    million to $8 million for fiscal year 1999 to 2001. We have
    other suggested changes that are addressed in the formal
    statement.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Administration would like to see
    Congress pass S. 659, a bill that authorizes needed
    appropriations to fund the recommendations in the Great Lakes
    Fishery Resources Restoration Study. This bill establishes a
    coordinated process to identify and fund projects that will
    help restore the fish and wildlife resources of the Great
    Lakes. It provides a creative funding mechanism that requires a
    75-25 Federal-non-Federal match to ensure broad support for
    restoration projects.
        In addition, the legislation facilitates movement from
    study to action and provides the critical framework for the
    development and implementation of partner restoration projects.
    Finally, S. 659 will continue the momentum and strong Federal
    presence with States, tribes, the Great Lakes Commission, and
    non-governmental organizations and partners to continue to work
    together to restore the resource.
        If the bill is not passed, the Administration believes that
    partner projects may disintegrate due to lack of funding and
    lack of coordinated support. Lake trout, poster brook trout,
    Atlantic salmon, and lake sturgeon restoration activities
    currently underway may be impeded or stopped. Federal
    facilitation of resolution of Great Lakes inter-jurisdictional
    fishery issues could be impaired and, in addition, Federal
    credibility at all levels within the Great Lakes natural
    resource management community may be diminished and future
    efforts made less effective.
        S. 659 will enable the Service to continue to provide
    support and needed Federal funding to restore fish and wildlife
    resources of one of the Nation's most important ecosystems.
        Mr. Chairman, that's a very quick run down of our positions
    on these important pieces of legislation. I would be happy to
    answer any questions that you or the other members of the
    committee may have.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. As I understand it,
    you were for all of these, but the Bear Protection Act you had
    some questions on.
        Mr. Rogers. Correct.
        Senator Chafee. We will stay in touch with you and the
    service department on that.
        The rest, it seemed to me--is it fair to say you are for
    the rest of them?
        Mr. Rogers. That's correct. A few recommended changes, but
    basically for them.
        Senator Chafee. OK. We've got your testimony on that.
    That's very helpful.
        There's one thing that we didn't bring up, and just while
    I've got you here, this wasn't on the list, and this deals with
    the so-called Duck Stamp Act. The question was whether we
    should allow a portion of the receipts from the Duck Stamp Act
    to be used for marketing the duck stamp so that we could get
    greater revenue from that. That is not now a permissible use of
    the funds. What do you think of that?
        Mr. Rogers. That's correct, sir. The Fish and Wildlife
    Service, in the face of declining duck stamp sales, had given
    some thought to and developed a proposal whereby we would use a
    portion of the income from the sale of duck stamps to try to
    enhance the sale of this important tool to maintain and
    increase wetland habitat.
        We had started advancing this proposal, and the
    congressional members of the Migratory Bird Conservation
    Commission--that is Senator Breaux, Senator Cochran,
    Congressman Dingell, and Congressman Weldon--while generally in
    favor, raised the issue of potential oversight by the
    Commission as well as whether we were asking for the
    appropriate amount of funding. We have worked through these two
    issues and are again ready to advance a proposal that would
    accomplish this. It would be a relatively brief pilot program
    to see if our efforts could broaden and expand the sale of duck
    stamps to provide increased revenues for wetland enhancement.
        Senator Chafee. When you've got that ready why don't you
    send it on up here.
        Mr. Rogers. We'll do that.
        Senator Chafee. Senator Allard, do you have some questions?
        Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I don't.
        Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Rogers.
        Senator Chafee. On the tiger and rhino legislation that
    came over from the House, H.R. 2807 and H.R. 3113, it is my
    understanding that the principal purpose is to prohibit
    products labeled as containing these and to close the markets,
    and that all seems to make sense. It has pretty extensive civil
    and criminal penalties and forfeiture authorities. To what
    extent do you think the Service would expect to see criminal
    penalties and forfeitures used to prohibit these?
        Mr. Rogers. We are not out to immediately turn Asian
    medicine shopkeepers into criminals. The aim of this bill would
    be to get those products off the market and decrease the
    incentive for take of the critters in the wild. We would begin
    by using educational and softer methods, as we have done in Los
    Angeles without this bill behind us, to try to reduce the
    presence of these things on the market.
        But we wouldn't be swooping down on all Asian markets and
    throwing the shopkeepers in jail or subjecting them to great
    fines. The criminal provisions would be used as a last resort
    to go after those who were knowingly and continually
    perpetuating this activity.
        Senator Chafee. You mentioned that the neotropical bird
    legislation could be a compliment to the North American
    Waterfowl Management Plan. As you know, the North American
    Waterfowl Plan just involves Canada, the United States, and
    Mexico, all who have some kind of framework in place. Do you
    think such a framework can be developed by the Caribbean and
    Latin American countries for neotropical birds? In other words,
    it's a long step from what they're doing to have some kind of a
    framework that can make this succeed.
        Mr. Rogers. That's a very important point, Senator. We have
    extensive experience in the Caribbean and all through Latin
    America working with the countries and the non-governmental
    organizations in those countries on neotropical birds. What has
    been missing to kind of glue the whole thing together has been
    an overriding act that would, in fact, bring it together, as
    this does, and also the potential mechanism for funding this
    disparate activities.
        So, yes, we do believe that they can be brought together, a
    framework similar to the North American plan can be
    established, and we believe that this Act would be very
    important in accomplishing that.
        Senator Chafee. OK. We've got a vote on. What I would like
    to do is recess. I don't think there are any more questions.
        Do you have any questions of Mr. Rogers?
        Senator Allard. No, I don't, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Chafee. So, Mr. Rogers, that completes your
    testimony. Thank you.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Chafee. When we come back we will deal with Panel
    II and then to Panel III. So we will have a little recess here
    for about 10 minutes while we vote. Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Senator Chafee. We'll now go to the second panel. Ms.
    Ginette Hemley, vice president for Species Conservation, World
    Wildlife Fund; Mr. Wayne Pacelle, senior vice president, The
    Humane Society of the United States; and Ms. Kristin Vehrs,
    deputy director, American Zoo and Aquarium Association.
        So we'll start with you, Ms. Hemley.

        STATEMENT OF GINETTE HEMLEY, VICE PRESIDENT FOR SPECIES
           CONSERVATION, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Hemley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today. I
    am Ginette Hemley, vice president for Species Conservation at
    World Wildlife Fund. My written testimony addresses several of
    the legislative issues before us today. But this morning I will
    speak principally about three of them.
        First, the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act. As this
    committee is well aware, rhinos and tigers are among the most
    critically endangered species on earth. Virtually all
    populations have experienced staggering declines due to
    poaching, a problem stemming directly from the demand for tiger
    bone and rhino horn used in traditional medicine principally in
    East Asia, but also in countries such as the United States.
        Fortunately, and largely because of U.S. pressure, several
    key East Asian countries and consumer markets, including
    Taiwan, China, South Korea, and Hong Kong, have made
    significant strides in addressing the illegal trade in recent
    years, strengthening their own laws and enforcement programs.
    The result is that positive and illegal trade has slowed down.
    But, ironically, the United States has yet to take action to
    close what we consider a loophole in the enforcement system in
    this country that has allowed a trade in products containing,
    or labeled as containing, tiger and rhino to flourish.
        A recent report by World Wildlife Fund of its trade
    monitoring program traffic revealed that there are more tiger
    medicinal products on North American markets today than there
    were 5 years ago. This alarming trend must be reversed through
    more effective enforcement and by working directly with
    traditional Chinese medicine communities to reduce demand for
    these products and promote alternatives. On the latter issue, I
    am pleased to report that we are seeing some progress.
    Unfortunately, it is not enough to solve the problem.
        World Wildlife Fund strongly urges the Senate to pass the
    Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act in a form similar to that
    passed by the House in April, that is H.R. 2807, to make it
    illegal to import and sell any medicinal product labeled as
    containing rhino or tiger ingredients, thus allowing for direct
    enforcement action and seizure of such products wherever they
    are found. This action, as you have heard, has been recommended
    by CITES. We are aware that there are differing views about the
    enforcement and penalty provisions contained in the House bill,
    and we would like to work with the committee to resolve these
    differences. We believe that these provisions could
    appropriately be toned down without undercutting the aim of the
    legislation, and that is to get these products off store
    shelves.
        Turning now to the Bear Protection Act, World Wildlife Fund
    greatly appreciates the interest of Senator McConnell and the
    other cosponsors of S. 263 in improving the conservation status
    of the world's bears. We offer the following comments with the
    aim of ensuring that any legislation passed by Congress truly
    contributes to global bear conservation.
        Mr. Chairman, while we very much support the overall intent
    of the bill, to help bears, we question some of the bill's
    findings which, in our view, do not accurately portray the
    status of bears and the bear trade. We are very fortunate here
    in North America to have some of the healthiest bear
    populations in the world, with the American black bear in
    particular considered stable or increasing throughout most of
    its range with the exception of populations in Louisiana and
    Florida.
        Further, there is little indication that these or other
    bear populations in the United States have been negatively
    impacted overall by poaching for commercial trade in bear
    parts, particularly viscera, for medicinal uses. Most States
    already prohibit the commercial trade in bear parts, but seven
    apparently still allow it for products taken from bears within
    their borders. Although there is concern that inconsistent
    State laws may facilitate illegal trade and laundering of bear
    parts, to the best of our knowledge, there is little evidence
    that this is a major conservation problem.
        With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, World Wildlife Fund would
    like to offer the following recommendations on the proposed
    legislation.
        First, because most of the information on the illegal trade
    of bear parts is based on anecdotal reports, there is a clear
    need to better define the problem. We recommend that Congress
    direct and provide financial support for the Department of
    Interior to conduct an assessment of the illegal trade in bear
    parts in the United States and its links to the Asian medicinal
    trade. Such data, in our view, are essential to responsible
    trade control and enforcement.
        Second, we question the need at this point for broad
    prohibitions on trade in bear products, particularly in
    interstate commerce, pending the outcome of the kind of review
    I have just suggested.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the Bear Protection
    Act will do little to achieve its aims without authorizing new
    funding for two important activities--bear anti-poaching and
    trade enforcement in the United States, and conservation of
    endangered bear species outside of our borders. Support for
    such activity is essential if we are truly going to help the
    world's bears.
        Let me now turn briefly to the Fish and Wildlife Revenue
    Enhancement Act, the legislation proposed by Mr. Allard and
    others, that would allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to
    recoup some of the cost associated with using forfeited and
    abandoned wildlife products in educational, scientific, and
    Native American religious activities.
        We strongly support the Service's educational initiatives
    that utilize forfeited wildlife products, such as the
    ``suitcase for survival'' and ``cargo for conservation''
    programs. These, in our view, are the priorities for which such
    products should be used. But it's clear that these programs
    operate successfully only at substantial cost to the Service,
    and even with such programs a large surplus of forfeited
    wildlife will, unfortunately, likely remain.
        We see the potential benefit to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service of selling certain non-endangered wildlife products if
    the proceeds of such sales can be directed back into
    educational and related activities. But such sales should be
    undertaken only with the utmost caution and products from
    species listed under the Endangered Species Act and other laws
    should never be allowed to be sold.
        World Wildlife Fund would, therefore, offer two
    recommendations for the proposed legislation.
        First, the Fish and Wildlife Service should be instructed
    to develop a system of evaluating the types of products that
    would be sold, making it a priority to use them first for
    educational and related purposes, but taking into account the
    legal and conservation status of the affected species in their
    various countries of origin to be fully aware of any
    conservation concerns or impacts that might be associated with
    selling any products.
        Second, we suggest that language be added to the bill
    specifically prohibiting the sale of species listed under the
    ESA, the Marine Mammal Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or in
    CITES Appendix I.
        Senator Chafee. I think Senator Allard has that in his
    bill. Don't you?
        Senator Allard. We're working with your staff, Mr.
    Chairman, to get that provision in the bill. Hopefully, it will
    be in the Chairman's mark.
        Senator Chafee. I see. Thank you.
        Ms. Hemley. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I have two very brief
    comments about one other bill, the proposed Neotropical
    Migratory Bird Conservation Act. First, while we wholeheartedly
    support the effort to provide new funding mechanisms for
    protecting important migratory bird habitat in Latin America
    and the Caribbean, we believe that any new programs should also
    extend to conservation of important breeding areas for
    neotropical migrants in North America. Without this component,
    any new program would simply be incomplete.
        Second, we believe it is important to better define how the
    program supported by this new legislation would relate to and
    compliment other existing Government and private sector
    initiatives aimed at protecting neotropical migratory bird
    habitat in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my statement. I'll
    be happy to answer any questions.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you very much. What we'll do is
    complete the witnesses in this panel and then have some
    questions for all three of you.
        Mr. Pacelle.

     STATEMENT OF WAYNE PACELLE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, THE HUMANE
                      SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES

        Mr. Pacelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, my name is
    Wayne Pacelle and I'm senior vice president for communications
    and government affairs for the Humane Society of the United
    States. On behalf of our 6.2 million members and constituents,
    I offer this testimony, also signing on to more than 30 pieces
    of testimony in support of these bills.
        I'm going to comment on the Bear Protection Act, the rhino
    and tiger legislation, very briefly, and the Fish and Wildlife
    Revenue Enhancement Act. All of these bills focus on the need
    to stem the tide of illegal trade in wildlife--that's the over-
    arching concern here today. The bills relating to the disposal
    of stockpiles demonstrates the enormous magnitude of the
    illegal wildlife trade in this country.
        The bills relating to the conservation of rhinos and tigers
    and the trade in products made from them and other threatened
    and endangered species are the latest in a series of domestic
    and international steps to solve the illegal trade in products
    of these animals which have been driven to the brink of
    extinction by this trade. The bill relating to bear parts trade
    seeks to stem the precipitous decline of Asian bear species
    whose parts are traded globally, and the bill also seeks to
    proactively protect America's bears from the same strong
    markets that have had such a significant adverse impact on
    Asian bear populations.
        In short, we support the Rhino and Tiger Conservation
    Reauthorization Act, and we do support Senator Jeffords in his
    efforts to modify his bill to have expeditious passage of the
    Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act. We have met with Senator
    Allard's staff; we do have some concerns about that
    legislation, although we surely agree with him that the purpose
    of the legislation in terms of funding law enforcement is a
    critically important one.
        I want to reserve the balance of my remarks for the Bear
    Protection Act. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this legislation has
    53 cosponsors in the Senate--24 Republicans and 29 Democrats.
    There are 13 cosponsors on this committee. In the House, there
    is companion legislation which has 135 cosponsors, again of a
    very bipartisan nature. There are hundreds of groups that
    endorse this legislation. I do want to mention a couple of
    others that came in late. The Idaho Wildlife Federation and the
    Idaho Sporting Congress, both hunting groups, do support the
    Bear Protection Act.
        The principal intent of the Bear Protection Act is to
    assist State and Federal wildlife law enforcement and the
    enforcement agencies of other nations by doing three things,
    and I think it's very important to note all three things
    because some have focused on just one component of the
    legislation. No. 1, is to protect endangered Asian bears from
    international markets for their organs; No. 2, protect American
    bears from being poached to supply foreign demand for their
    parts; and No. 3, to protect American bears from domestic
    markets in bear parts.
        In 1994, Mr. Chairman, Dr. Chris Servheen, representing the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the International Union for
    the Conservation of Nature Species Survival Committee Bear
    Specialist Group, noted, ``There is a serious impact on global
    bear populations from the trade in bear parts.'' In 1995, he
    added, ``As Asian bear populations decline and wild bear bile
    and other bear parts become more difficult to obtain, sources
    of bear parts outside Asia will be developed by traders and
    others willing to make significant profits.''
        In 1995, the World Wildlife Fund annual report stated, ``A
    recent traffic study reported that American black bear
    populations are targets of illegal traders in bear parts. The
    booming medicinal market for these parts where a single gall
    bladder can be sold for as much as $11,000 in some Far Eastern
    markets has already sent Asian bear populations into decline
    and is causing traders to turn increasingly to American black
    bears. A complex patchwork of State laws in the United States
    makes it impossible to regulate the trade.''
        So, in short, I think that there is no dispute that a
    patchwork of laws exist at the State level: 32 States ban
    commercializing of the trade in bear parts, 9 States allow
    trade only of gall bladders taken from outside the State, 7
    States allow commerce regardless of origin, 2 States have no
    regulations at all. This current system allows poachers to kill
    bears illegally in one State where the sale of bear parts is
    prohibited and to sell the parts legally in another State or
    ship them out of the country entirely, completely circumventing
    the first State's prohibition on sale of bear parts.
        I just would like to give you and Senator Allard an
    example. In 1994, Alaskan wildlife officials were alerted to a
    shipment of 385 pounds of bear feet coming into Alaska from
    Idaho via Washington. Agents discovered that the shipment also
    included 40 bear gall bladders. Because the actual sale of the
    gall bladders took place in Idaho, where such sale is lawful,
    an Alaskan court ruled that the shipment did not violate State
    laws even though the sale of bear gall bladders is prohibited
    in both Washington and Alaska. I think that case illustrates
    one of the interstate issues that the legislation is trying to
    get at.
        In 1995-96, the Humane Society of the United States and
    other organizations surveyed the States on this matter. More
    than 30 State wildlife agency representatives and/or law
    enforcement personnel responded that this legal disparity makes
    wildlife law enforcement difficult and endorsed a uniform legal
    framework to prohibit the trade in bear viscera. We do know
    that there is a significant anecdotal evidence of widespread
    trade in bear gall bladders. Operation Berkshire in New York
    and Massachusetts, Operation Smokey, Operation Ursus, all of
    these sting operations have yielded major gall bladder troves.
        Passage of this Act is a precautionary exercise to protect
    America's black bears, and it is also needed to protect
    endangered Asian bears. One major reason we need a uniform ban
    on the sale of bear parts is the look alike problem. It is
    impossible to visually distinguish the gall bladder of, for
    example, an endangered Asiatic black bear from an American
    black bear. By passing this prohibition, we can help State and
    foreign bear conservation enforcement efforts. Because the
    endangered bear gall bladders can easily pass for the non-
    endangered bladders, international poachers use American black
    bear galls as a shield to hide their sale of endangered bear
    galls. And I do want to note that a U.S. co-authored resolution
    at the 10th conference of the parties at CITES urged parties to
    adopt national legislation to demonstrably reduce illegal bear
    parts or derivatives. The guiding assumption behind the
    resolution was that legal trade provides an avenue for illegal
    trade.
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, it's very appropriate we think
    for the Federal Government to ban the trade in bear gall
    bladders as a matter of policy whether or not American black
    bears are endangered. We're not disputing the fact that many
    American black bear populations are healthy. But we think as a
    matter of policy, just as there is a prohibition on airborne
    hunting under the Federal Airborne Hunting Act, just as there
    is a Federal prohibition on baiting, whether or not the baiting
    activity would cause endangerment in itself or airborne hunting
    would cause endangerment, as a Congress, you have decided in
    the past to bar those activities, and we think that trade in
    gall bladders does not serve the national interest. Who is hurt
    by this legislation? Nobody except poachers and smugglers. And
    even if five gall bladders are traded, that's five too many,
    causing the unnecessary killing of bears for their parts.
        I do want to note as a final point that there are
    alternatives accepted by traditional practitioners of
    traditional Chinese medicine. According to both the Earth Care
    Society and the Association of Chinese Medicine, the two
    prominent Hong Kong non-governmental organizations, there are
    at least 54 herbal alternatives to bear bile and its various
    applications.
        Trade in bear gall bladders does not serve any compelling
    national interest and we think that this legislation helps to
    stop that trade and protect black bears here in the United
    States and abroad.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Pacelle.
        And now Ms. Kristin Vehrs, deputy director, American Zoo
    and Aquarium Association.

     STATEMENT OF KRISTIN VEHRS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AMERICAN ZOO AND
                   AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION, BETHESDA, MD

        Ms. Vehrs. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
    members of the committee. My name is Kristin Vehrs. I am the
    deputy director of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association
    (AZA). AZA is a professional organization representing 184
    accredited zoological parks, aquariums, and oceanariums in
    North America. We do appreciate the opportunity to testify
    before the committee this morning, and I would like to comment
    briefly on four bills you're addressing.
        S. 2094, the Fish and Wildlife Revenue Enhancement Act of
    1998, would allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to retain all
    proceeds from already authorized and future sales of eligible
    wildlife materials obtained while enforcing its laws. The
    proceeds could cover the costs of shipping, storing,
    appraising, and auctioning off eligible wildlife items. We
    understand that Fish and Wildlife Service may still use
    proceeds for its ``Reward Account'' and for more extensive
    distribution of these materials for educational, scientific,
    and Native American religious purposes.
        We continue to be interested in the availability of fish
    and wildlife related items for these educational programs. The
    AZA, Fish and Wildlife Service, the World Wildlife Fund, the
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and Samsonite have a
    cooperative educational effort entitled Suitcase for Survival.
    It's an extremely popular educational tool for our member zoo
    and aquariums. Since its 1991 inception, the Suitcase for
    Survival program has reached millions of school children
    throughout North America, and as of 1997, there were 187
    suitcases in circulation with a long waiting list for more
    suitcases.
        If S. 2094 is enacted, we would like to see a continued
    balance between paying these costs for auctions, providing
    products for education, and providing money into the Reward
    Account. I believe AZA would support the suggestions offered by
    World Wildlife Fund.
        Turning to the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act, AZA
    believes that H.R. 2807 must be enacted into law. This
    legislation would prohibit the import into or export from the
    United States of any product labeled as or actually containing
    any species of tiger or rhinoceros.
        The bill would stop the significant importation of rhino
    and tiger products into the U.S. Recent World Wildlife Fund and
    Wildlife Conservation Society reports indicate that more than
    50 percent of all retail stores in North America Chinatowns
    sell illegal endangered species products despite a 20-year
    CITES ban. The bill also would eliminate the expensive and time
    consuming laboratory testing necessary to determine if a
    confiscated product really contains ingredients originating
    from rhinos or tigers.
        Mr. Chairman, I understand that some members of the
    committee are concerned that the enforcement language in H.R.
    2807 is too extreme, allowing seizure of equipment, vessels,
    vehicles, items used in the import/export selling of rhino and
    tiger products. We are willing to work with you and the
    committee to resolve this issue. We would like to see H.R. 2807
    enacted this session of Congress.
        H.R. 3113, the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation
    Authorization Act, is an act AZA strongly supports. This is an
    example of an effective public-private partnership designed to
    deliver immediate results by assisting conservation
    organizations in the field in saving animals from extinction.
    The funds are needed to keep conservation efforts in the field
    ongoing.
        S. 263, the Bear Protection Act--Mr. Chairman, we support
    the intent of S. 263 to conserve bear species. Our reluctance
    to fully support the bill is our fear that we don't fully
    understand the problems yet. There appears to be a disconnect
    between data from protection organizations and data from State
    fish and game and Federal officials. Most black bear
    populations remain stable or are increasing except those in
    Florida and Louisiana. Seven States allow export and sale of
    bear parts, and yet, according to Fish and Wildlife Service,
    virtually no permits for export have been requested.
        We're further not aware of an increase in poaching. While I
    do understand HSUS' policy argument, that it would be good
    policy for Congress to enact that there be no trade in bear
    parts or products, I guess I want to make sure we don't lose
    this opportunity to learn more about what the actual problems
    are.
        In that vein, AZA joined the World Wildlife Fund and the
    National Wildlife Federation in making some recommendations to
    strengthen S. 263. We would like to see the legislation amended
    to allow for a broad review of the trade by the Department of
    Interior with the assistance of State fish and wildlife
    agencies, with specific funding for this project and a tight
    deadline. We do not want to hold up conservation of bears. We
    just want to make sure that we're really solving the problem.
        Our suggestion also was to provide the Department of
    Interior with greater flexibility to impose different kinds of
    trade restrictions; to include authorization language for
    enforcement funding to strengthen the long term enforcement
    goals of the Bear Protection Act; and finally, include a
    provision in the legislation authorizing specific funding to
    support conservation programs for endangered bears.
        Thank you for allowing me to testify on these four
    important wildlife bills.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Ms. Vehrs.
        It seemed to me that Mr. Pacelle wanted to charge ahead on
    the Bear Protection Act, if I understood you right. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Pacelle. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Chafee. Your belief is that even though the bears
    are now in good shape in the United States that there's the
    possibility of----
        Mr. Pacelle. Well, the eight species of bears in the
    world--many of them have gall bladders that look exactly alike.
    Under CITES, the American black bear is listed under Appendix
    II for look-alike reasons. Because the American black bear gall
    bladder looks just like the Asiatic black bear gall bladder,
    this creates a very significant enforcement problem and it
    allows a smokescreen for the poachers to use the American gall
    bladders and the Asiatic ones and to mix them up. It makes
    enforcement a very difficult proposition.
        But we've never charged, and I'm just afraid that some, not
    necessarily here today, are offering a red herring. We've never
    made the allegation that black bears in the United States are
    endangered, with the exception of the two subspecies, the
    Florida black bear which is expected to be listed as
    threatened, and also the Louisiana black bear which is
    threatened. We're saying that as a matter of policy, trading in
    bear gall bladders is not a good thing, it doesn't serve any
    national interest.
        Senator Chafee. Ms. Vehrs, I'm not quite sure that I
    understand your position on S. 2094. It seems to me you support
    the education programs, but have you taken a position on the
    portion of the bill that would generate more money?
        Ms. Vehrs. No, sir. Actually, our board of directors has
    not been asked to take a formal position. My staff
    recommendation to our board of directors would be to go ahead
    and support the bill with the caveat that we continue to
    balance the offering of these wildlife-related products for
    educational use, payment into that Reward Account, which then
    pays for the care of live animals while the legal proceedings
    are taking place, and using the funds for the payment of the
    shipping, the storage, and the handling.
        Senator Chafee. Senator Allard.
        Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, if I may try and respond to
    some of the comments of Ms. Vehrs. In reviewing the storage
    facility and the personal tour through there, I'm convinced
    that their top priority is education. I think that when they
    look at products that they have there, they try and single out
    those that have the greatest educational value. For example, if
    they should get hold of a stuffed animal, they don't consider
    any other purposes than for educational purposes. That's their
    top priority.
        So I felt in my tour of the facility that certainly
    education was that top priority. And I hope that would
    alleviate some of your concerns that you may have in that
    regard.
        Ms. Vehrs. It may.
        Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr.
    Pacelle. I don't know whether you've seen some of the amendment
    language that we're looking at. The way I understand it and
    it's been explained to me, the way current law is interpreted,
    they do have the ability to sell endangered species. And with
    the amendment that I would be working with the chairman to
    introduce my legislation; it specifically states, ``In carrying
    out paragraph (1), the Secretary of the Interior and the
    Secretary of Commerce may not sell endangered or threatened
    species, marine mammals, or migratory birds, or items derived
    from such species, mammals, or birds.''
        Even with the adoption of that amendment, you cannot
    support the bill?
        Mr. Pacelle. Well, we noted in our testimony that that was
    one of the curative suggestions. So we appreciate that.
        We do have a bit of a philosophical concern that I imagine
    it's going to be difficult to deal with, which is that we see
    the Service as an enforcement agency and we would rather not
    have the Service get involved in wildlife trade. And even
    though it's with a laudable purpose, we are concerned about the
    message sent that the primary Federal law enforcement agency on
    wildlife trade issues is abetting trade in some way. So that's
    kind of the underlying philosophical concern. We do sincerely
    appreciate your making it explicit in the legislation regarding
    Appendix I species.
        Senator Allard. I think there's a practical approach, too.
    I agree with you that I don't want them getting out there and
    merchandizing the products. But I think there is a practical
    matter. We're enhancing enforcement, which protects species,
    and we're enhancing the educational program, which I think
    protects species.
        So I hope that you would look at this legislation in regard
    to the amendment, and I hope we could count on your support.
        Mr. Pacelle. I think that given that you are the author of
    this legislation, your sending that message to the Service in
    terms of its conduct of these sales is very important. Because
    you can have two different messages sent depending upon the
    conduct of these sales. So I appreciate your thought in that
    regard.
        Senator Allard. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Senator Chafee. I want to thank everybody for their
    testimony. We appreciate your coming here.
        Now we will go to the next panel, which has Ms. Molly
    Krival, past president, Ding Darling Wildlife Society, from
    Florida; Mr. Gary Taylor, legislative director of the
    International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; and
    Mr. Thomas Crane, program manager of the Great Lakes
    Commission.
        Ms. Krival, you may proceed.

      STATEMENT OF MOLLY KRIVAL, PAST PRESIDENT, ``DING'' DARLING
                     WILDLIFE SOCIETY, SANIBEL, FL

        Ms. Krival. Thank you for the privilege of appearing here
    today. I am Molly Krival. I have been a volunteer at the J.N.
    ``Ding'' Darling National Wildlife Refuge for 10 years,
    accumulating 5,000 volunteer hours. I also joined the ``Ding''
    Darling Wildlife Society, a Friends group, and I served as its
    president for three terms. The Society has provided up to
    $50,000 a year for refuge projects. I have participated in
    training programs for refuge managers on how to develop Friends
    groups, and I'm a member of a mentoring team which visits
    refuges to help them start a Friends organization. This year I
    was honored as the Volunteer of the Year by the National
    Wildlife Refuge System.
        Those are my credentials for speaking in support of S.
    2244. I will direct my remarks to three of its provisions.
    First, it encourages the use of volunteers and donations and
    facilitates partnerships. Refuge staffing is often at a bare
    minimum to manage the resource. When they train volunteers, the
    staff multiplies its productivity.
        Partnerships also increase productivity by funding projects
    not covered by Federal appropriations. The ``Ding'' Darling
    Wildlife Society does that. So do partnerships with cities,
    like Sanibel, and private groups, like the Sanibel Captiva
    Conservation Foundation. We have noted that grant providing
    institutions like funding partnership projects which tend to do
    more for the dollar.
        Second, section 3 of this bill allows donations to be made
    to individual refuges and creates a new matching grants program
    to encourage donations. During my first week as a volunteer, a
    woman who had known ``Ding'' Darling came to the visitors
    center with a drawing he had given her. She wanted to give the
    drawing to the refuge. The staff member I consulted looked
    frustrated--the refuge couldn't keep donations but the ``Ding''
    Darling Wildlife Society could. Since not all refuges have a
    501(c)(3) Friends group to receive donations, gifts have either
    been refused or sent to some mysterious agency reservoir never
    to be seen again.
        I find that local people form an allegiance to their local
    refuge first and want to support it. That conviction of the
    heart leads to donations of time and other gifts. Being sure
    our donations will stay at home is very important to us.
        The ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society is raising $2 million
    in private funds to build a Center for Education. So far we
    have about $1.4 million. But other refuge Friends groups have
    goals that far outstrip their fund-raising capabilities, such
    as to build a first visitor center, to purchase items to manage
    the wildlife, to upgrade environmental education in their
    community. They need money. Almost always they can raise a
    portion themselves, but the option for a matching grant is very
    encouraging. That provision in this bill would startup a lot of
    good things.
        Three, S. 2244 includes a pilot project that provides a
    volunteer coordinator to certain refuges. Volunteers are people
    with all sorts of skills who want to help the refuge. We need a
    staff member who can organize and train us and develop a
    program for us. Without such a program, we may lose interest.
        In summary, all of the provisions of S. 2244 help people to
    volunteer, to form a 501(c)(3) Friends group, and to donate to
    their local national wildlife refuge. Many of us find enormous
    satisfaction in helping conserve the best of what we have for
    future generations. We see a bird, an alligator, or a flowering
    plant for the miracle of nature that it is. Our hearts leap up.
        I think Senator Chafee and his co-signers have produced
    truly helpful legislation in this bill, and I hope you will
    agree. Thank you for the privilege of addressing you.
        Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much. And
    congratulations to you for your honor. It's my understanding
    you are the Volunteer of the Year at Wildlife Refuges.
        Ms. Krival. That's right.
        Senator Chafee. Good for you.
        Ms. Krival. Thank you.
        Senator Chafee. I must say, I don't know where Sanibel is.
        Ms. Krival. It's off the southwest coast of Florida, off of
    Fort Myers. It's a barrier island. More than half of it is
    comprised of the ``Ding'' Darling National Wildlife Refuge.
        Senator Chafee. So you escaped the fires, did you?
        Ms. Krival. Yes, we did, fortunately. That was in mid-
    eastern Florida. We're southwest.
        Senator Chafee. Well, they certainly were horrible, and
    still are. They haven't controlled them yet.
        Ms. Krival. Yes.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Gary Taylor, legislative director, International
    Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
        Mr. Taylor.

     STATEMENT OF GARY TAYLOR, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL
       ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Gary Taylor,
    legislative director of the International Association of Fish
    and Wildlife Agencies. I appreciate the opportunity to share
    with you today the Association's perspectives on several fish
    and wildlife conservation bills before the committee. All 50
    State fish and wildlife agencies are members of our
    Association.
        You have asked us particularly for our comment on the Bear
    Protection Act, the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration
    Act, and the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.
        Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, with our comments on S. 263,
    the Bear Protection Act. The Association cannot support S. 263
    as introduced. We understand the intent of the bill sponsors is
    to help address the poaching of Asian bear species for their
    gall. However, the bill as currently drafted focuses its
    application largely on the regulation of trade of bear viscera
    in the United States based on the premise that domestic
    poaching of U.S. indigenous bear species is contributing to the
    market demand for bear gall and is having, or could in the
    future have, a significant negative impact on U.S. bear
    populations.
        Mr. Chairman, there is no substantiation to support either
    of these premises. The Association therefore concludes that as
    drafted S. 263 is neither helpful nor necessary in addressing
    the decline of foreign bear species.
        Let me offer right up front, Mr. Chairman, that the
    Association is certainly willing to work with the bill's
    sponsors and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on a more
    appropriately focused import/export bill that would address any
    existing regulatory deficiencies under the Convention on
    International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora.
    However, S. 263 as introduced is not focused on that
    perspective.
        Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, bear populations throughout
    the United States are robust and generally increasing. Also, as
    you are aware, the statutory responsibility for the
    conservation and management of bear species in the United
    States lies largely with the State fish and wildlife agencies,
    except for the polar bear, the grizzly bear, and the Louisiana
    black bear where the Fish and Wildlife Service shares
    responsibility with the States. Regulation of bear harvest and
    allowable use of any parts or products, such as fur, claws,
    gall, and other products, is thus closely regulated by the
    State fish and wildlife agencies, including through the
    application and enforcement of the Lacey Act by State and
    Federal wildlife officers.
        The Lacey Act already makes it a Federal violation to
    transport or sell across State lines or national borders any
    wildlife that is illegally taken in the State of origin. As
    recently as May of last year, our Association surveyed all 38
    bear range States regarding illegal harvest and population
    impact. The information from the States clearly substantiates
    that while incidental illegal harvest occurs, there is no
    significant population impact from illegal harvest in any bear
    range State. If there were, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that
    our State fish and wildlife agencies would take appropriate
    action to address this.
        The Association believes, therefore, that the application
    of the Lacey Act to all U.S. domestic commerce in bear viscera,
    whether it is legal in a State or not, as proposed in S. 263,
    is unnecessary for bear resource protection and is an
    inappropriate Federal intrusion in the State management
    authorities and prerogatives. Mr. Chairman, the States spend
    tens of millions of dollars each year in wildlife law
    enforcement, and I assure you they would be aware of and
    respond to any significant poaching of domestic bear
    populations. The States' record on conservation law enforcement
    speaks for itself, and we believe there is no substantiated
    evidence that would compel Federal intervention.
        Let me suggest, Mr. Chairman, rather than the creation of
    additional Federal statutory authority, as contemplated in S.
    263, especially where it preempts State management
    prerogatives, that the provision of additional resources to the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Law Enforcement
    would be a more appropriate and effective means of effecting
    Asian bear populations by the regulation of illegal trade and
    their parts or products.
        As I indicated earlier, there is little data to
    substantiate if U.S. bear gall is contributing to a market
    demand for Asian bear gall and thus affecting the Asian bear
    parts trade and consequently the Asian bear population. The
    Association would thus encourage additional support to the Fish
    and Wildlife Service to address this question also.
        And finally, as I indicated earlier, Mr. Chairman, we would
    be happy to work with bill sponsors and the Service on a more
    narrowly focused import/export bill that could address legal
    deficiencies in CITES that might exist now.
        Let me now turn to S. 659, the Great Lakes Fish and
    Wildlife Conservation Act. In general, Mr. Chairman, while the
    Association supports this bill from a perspective that it could
    facilitate more effective cooperation between Federal, State,
    and tribal entities relative to fisheries restoration, we would
    question whether this legislation is necessary to accomplish
    that objective.
        We believe the Fish and Wildlife Service already has the
    necessary authority to implement its role in carrying out the
    recommendations of the Great Lakes Fishery Restoration Study.
    Whether or not the statutory establishment within the Fish and
    Wildlife Service of another committee is necessary to consider
    funding for proposals to implement this study is also subject
    to question.
        The Association believes that the Fish and Wildlife Service
    can and should, if appropriate, increase its budget request to
    fulfill its role and obligations in the Great Lakes fisheries
    effort regardless of whether S. 659 is enacted into law. We are
    also interested in ensuring that any additional authorization
    under S. 659 is directed at on the ground efforts in fishery
    restoration and conservation and not toward furthering U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service offices, facilities, or
    administrative infrastructure.
        Having said all this, Mr. Chairman, I can share with you
    the support of the Association for S. 659, but should also let
    you know that the enthusiasm of this support among the eight
    Great Lakes State fish and wildlife agencies varies widely.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me briefly comment on S. 1970,
    the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. As you know,
    the Association has long played an active role in migratory
    bird conservation, from the negotiation and ratification of the
    Migratory Bird Treaty in 1916 and passage of the Migratory Bird
    Treaty Act in 1918 to the North American Wetlands Conservation
    Act currently before this Congress for reauthorization. The
    Association and our member State fish and wildlife agencies are
    also very active in Partners in Flight, the Western Hemisphere
    Shore Bird Reserve Program, the North American Waterfowl
    Management Plan, and other international endeavors to conserve
    migratory birds throughout their range.
        The Association therefore supports S. 1970 as another
    measure to facilitate the conservation of migratory birds,
    particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean.
        Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, our habitat
    conservation efforts in the United States encompassing the
    breeding range of these species will be successful only if the
    habitat in their winter range is likewise secured. The
    Association believes that S. 1970 establishes a protocol that
    will facilitate that and therefore supports this measure.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I thank you for
    the opportunity to share our perspectives. I would be pleased
    to answer any questions.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor.
        Now, Mr. Crane, program manager, Great Lakes Commission.

        STATEMENT OF THOMAS CRANE, PROGRAM MANAGER, GREAT LAKES
                       COMMISSION, ANN ARBOR, MI

        Mr. Crane. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Chafee. Good morning, Mr. Crane.
        Mr. Crane. I am Thomas Crane. I'm a program manager for
    resource management and environmental quality on staff of the
    Great Lakes Commission. We're located in Ann Arbor, MI. It's my
    pleasure to be here and to have the opportunity to summarize a
    detailed written statement that was prepared by Dr. Michael
    Donahue, the executive director of the Great Lakes Commission,
    that was submitted for the record. I appear today on behalf of
    the eight member States of the Great Lakes Commission, and will
    speak in support of S. 659, reauthorization of the Great Lakes
    Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act.
        Passage and implementation of the original Act provided the
    Great Lakes States, and the entire Great Lakes governance
    infrastructure, with a framework for the cooperative
    conservation, restoration, and management of Great Lakes fish
    and wildlife resources. Reauthorization of the Act will ensure
    that present progress is maintained and new initiatives are
    pursued, including implementation of recommendations from the
    Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study.
        Reauthorization will offer citizens of the region and the
    Nation improved sport fishing, enhanced use and enjoyment of
    wildlife, increased aquatic recreation activities, and stronger
    local economies.
        The Great Lakes Commission is an interstate compact agency
    that is founded in State and Federal law and mandated to
    represent the collective views of the eight Great Lakes States
    before the Congress and the Federal Government. Our enabling
    legislation, the Great Lakes Basin Compact, directs the
    Commission to promote the orderly integrated and comprehensive
    development, use, and conservation of the water resources of
    the Great Lakes Basin.
        The Great Lakes Commission membership, comprised of senior
    State officials, legislators, and Governor-appointees, endorsed
    S. 659 by unanimous action on April 3, 1998, when adopting its
    legislative and appropriations priorities for the second
    session of the 105th Congress. Commission support for this bill
    is based upon four observations:
        First, the bill reflects and furthers evolving resource
    management philosophies that have been embraced by the
    Commission. The Act emphasizes management by ecosystem as
    opposed to geopolitical boundaries. It features
    interjurisdictional partnerships among Federal, State, and
    tribal governments. It builds on existing authorities and
    existing institutional mechanisms as opposed to creating new
    bureaucracy. It provides the States and tribal authorities, via
    the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Proposal Review
    Committee, with recommendatory authority over allocation of
    grant moneys. And it positions the Federal Government to
    provide services that are well-suited to intergovernmental
    partnership, such as technical assistance, coordination,
    research, and financial support.
        Second, the bill enhances an already strong partnership
    between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Great Lakes
    Commission, and the Great Lakes States. Service fishery
    resource offices have been established in Michigan, Wisconsin,
    and New York that have provided the region with a first point
    of contact on fisheries issues that affect the States
    individually and collectively.
        Third, the original Act provided for the Great Lakes
    Fishery Resources Restoration Study and its 32 recommendations
    that warrant serious consideration and action. The Great Lakes
    Commission recognizes the prospective benefits of study
    implementation. The 32 recommendations are focused on five
    areas that are highly consistent with the Commission's
    management philosophy: (1) coordinating and harmonizing
    programs across disciplines and Basin jurisdictions; (2)
    building upon and supporting existing programs and
    institutional arrangements; (3) strengthen the Basin's decision
    support system by promoting research, monitoring, assessment,
    evaluation, data enhancement, and associated functions; (4)
    calling for the development, funding, and implementation of
    action plans and various new initiatives; and finally (5)
    promoting public information and education.
        And finally, the Great Lakes Commission recognizes the
    reauthorization bill is supported within the Great Lakes
    community and addresses a number of State concerns with the
    original legislation. Memorandum of Understanding between the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Great Lakes States, and the
    Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and several tribal authorities
    has helped prepare for effective implementation of the Act.
        With regard to specific provisions in the bill, the Great
    Lakes Commission endorses the legislative language as
    presented. In particular, we applaud section 6, language that
    establishes a State and tribal committee that will review and
    offer recommendations to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on
    fish and wildlife restoration proposals based on the results of
    the Restoration Study.
        Further, we concur with changes in the reauthorization
    language that provide for enhanced focus on project
    implementation, reliance on existing institutional
    arrangements, and reduction in the annual authorization from
    $10 million to $5 million, with $3.5 million of the latter to
    be made available to State and tribal partners. We emphasize
    however that appropriation of the authorized amount will be
    essential if the goals of the Act are to be fully realized.
        The Great Lakes Commission emphasizes that reauthorizing
    the Act rather than solely relying on existing U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service authorities is necessary to maintain and
    enhance progress under the original Act. Reauthorization will
    ensure that (1) recommendations from the Great Lakes Fishery
    Resources Restoration Study will be implemented, (2) the
    existing network of regional offices will be maintained, (3)
    the restoration proposals and resultant projects will be
    properly evaluated and targeted, (4) existing institutional
    arrangements will be used to the extent possible, and (5) the
    authorization levels will be set and targeted with an emphasis
    on project implementation.
        So, to conclude, the bill provides a much needed vehicle
    for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide technical
    assistance, coordination, research funding, and related support
    to the collective Great Lakes fishery management effort. The
    Act builds upon existing agreements and institutional
    arrangements, provides for a Federal-State-tribal partnership,
    is action oriented, and offers a mechanism for implementing
    recommendations of the Great Lakes Fishery Resources
    Restoration Study.
        The Great Lakes Commission therefore urges support of this
    legislation.
        That concludes my remarks and I would be happy to answer
    questions.
        Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Crane.
        We also would now include within the record a statement by
    Senator Glenn, a statement by Senator Abraham, and a statement
    by Senator McConnell.
        [The prepared statements of Senators Daschle, Glenn,
    Abraham, and McConnell follow:]
      Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas A. Daschle, U.S. Senator from the
                             State of South Dakota
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing me with this opportunity to
    testify today on behalf of S. 1970, the Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Act. I strongly support this bill, and believe that it
    will be of great assistance in our efforts to preserve native bird
    species.
        Some of our most valuable and beautiful species of birds--those
    that most of us take for granted, including bluebirds, goldfinches,
    robins and orioles--are challenged by habitat destruction in our
    hemisphere. It is not widely recognized that many North American bird
    species once considered common are in decline. In fact, a total of 90
    species of migratory birds are listed as endangered or threatened in
    the United States, and another 124 species are considered to be of high
    conservation concern.
        Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt of the benefit that these birds
    bring to the United States. Healthy bird populations prevent hundreds
    of millions of dollars in economic losses each year to farming and
    timber interests. By controlling insect populations, they help to
    prevent damage to crops. In addition, birdwatching and feeding
    generates $20 billion every year in revenue. Approximately 25 million
    Americans travel to observe birds each year, and 60 million American
    adults watch and feed birds at home.
        While we have taken steps to help protect these birds in the United
    States, they are also threatened by habitat destruction elsewhere in
    our hemisphere when they migrate south during winter months. For that
    reason, it is essential that we work with nations in Latin America and
    the Caribbean to establish protected stopover areas during their
    migrations. This bill achieves that goal by fostering partnerships
    between businesses, nongovernmental organizations and other nations to
    bring together the capital and expertise needed to preserve habitat
    throughout our hemisphere.
        Specifically, the Act establishes a 3-year demonstration project
    providing $4 million each year to help establish programs in Latin
    America and the Caribbean to manage and conserve neotropical migratory
    bird populations. The Act is designed to promote cooperation among
    nongovernmental organizations. The Federal share of each project's cost
    is limited to 33 percent, and half the non-Federal contribution must be
    in cash, not in-kind contributions.
        Mr. Chairman, I hope that you and the subcommittee will offer this
    bill your strong support. It has been endorsed by the National Audubon
    Society, the American Bird Conservancy and the Ornithological Council.
    I believe that it will substantially improve upon our ability to
    maintain critical habitat in our hemisphere and help to halt the
    decline of these important species. Thank you again for allowing me to
    testify in support of the bill.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of Hon. John Glenn, U.S. Senator from
                               the State of Ohio
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee for holding this
    hearing on wildlife bills. While many of these bills are ``small'' in
    comparison to others taken up by the committee this during the 105th
    Congress, they are nonetheless critically important to the regions and
    resources affected.
        I introduced The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act
    (GLFWRA) of 1997 (S. 659) in the Senate in April 1997, in coordination
    with the introduction of the companion bill (H.R. 1481) in the House by
    Congressman Steve LaTourette. It's been a long process, but with the
    favorable hearing held in the House June 18th and the hearing held by
    this committee here today, I am positive that we can still pass this
    critical piece of legislation this year.
        The primary purpose of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
    Restoration Act is to implement proposals that address recommendations
    put forth by the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study. To
    this end, the Act reauthorizes the existing Great Lakes Coordination
    and Great Lakes Fishery Resources Offices. The bill also sets up a
    proposal review committee identified with the existing Council of Lake
    Committees to review grant proposals and identify projects of the
    highest priority for the restoration of the fish and wildlife resources
    of the Great Lakes Basin. The Act encourages, supports, and coordinates
    Federal and non-Federal cooperative habitat restoration and natural
    resource management programs in the Great Lakes Basin.
        The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act represents a new
    generation of environmental legislation, one that recognizes the
    complexity and inter-relatedness of ecosystems. This Act seeks to
    address natural resource management in a comprehensive and
    conscientious manner by building partnerships among the Great Lakes
    States, U.S. and Canadian governments, and native American Tribes.
    Through regional cooperation, I believe we can address the
    environmental and economic concerns of the Great Lakes Basin and
    continue on the road toward the recovery of this precious natural and
    national resource. By passing this legislation, we in the Congress will
    be taking the right next step toward responsible stewardship of the
    Great Lakes as we venture into the new millennium.
        The bill enjoys widespread bicameral and bipartisan support. The
    bill has eight Senate sponsors, including myself. Twenty-eight of our
    colleagues on the House have cosponsored the companion measure. This
    bill represents the consensus of a diverse collaboration of tribal,
    State, Federal and international agencies with jurisdiction over the
    management of fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes. The bill
    also has received favorable review and broad support of organizations
    throughout the Great Lakes region for the approach it takes toward
    restoration of the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
        This fall, as I look back on the earth from space, I will be sure
    to look down on the Great Lakes. I know that they will be a cleaner,
    safer place for both humans and wildlife to live than they were at the
    time of my last flight because of the efforts we have made over the
    past decades. With the passage of this legislation, I will also be sure
    that they will continue to become even cleaner, safer places where fish
    and wildlife communities, and the human communities who enjoy them can
    continue to prosper.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Hon. Spencer Abraham, U.S. Senator from
                             the State of Michigan
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address the
    committee with respect to the ``Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
    Act of 1998.'' This legislation, which Senator Daschle and I
    introduced, is designed to protect over 90 endangered species of birds
    spending certain seasons in the United States and other seasons in
    other nations of the Western Hemisphere.
        Every year, approximately 25 million Americans travel to observe
    birds, and 60 million American adults watch and feed birds at home.
    Bird-watching is a source of great pleasure to many Americans, as well
    as a source of important revenue to States, like my own State of
    Michigan, which attract tourists to their scenes of natural beauty.
    Bird watching and feeding generates fully $20 billion every year in
    revenue across America.
        Birdwatching is a popular activity in Michigan, and its increased
    popularity is reflected by an increase in tourist dollars being spent
    in small, rural communities. Healthy bird populations also prevent
    hundreds of millions of dollars in economic losses each year to farming
    and timber interests. They help control insect populations, thereby
    preventing crop failures and infestations.
        Despite the enormous benefits we derive from our bird populations,
    many of them are struggling to survive. Ninety species are listed as
    endangered or threatened in the United States. Another 124 species are
    of high conservation concern. The primary reason for these declines is
    the degradation and loss of bird habitat.
        What makes this all the more troubling is that efforts in the
    United States to protect these birds' habitats can only be of limited
    utility. Among bird watchers' favorites, many neotropical birds are
    endangered or of high conservation concern.
        Because neotropical migratory birds range across a number of
    international borders every year, we must work to establish safeguards
    at both ends of their migration routes, as well as at critical stopover
    areas along their way. Only in this way can conservation efforts prove
    successful.
        The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act will protect bird
    habitats across international boundaries by establishing partnerships
    between the business community, nongovernmental organizations and
    foreign nations. By teaming businesses with international organizations
    concerned to protect the environment we will combine capital with know-
    how. By partnering these entities with local organizations in countries
    where bird habitat is endangered we will see to it that local people
    receive the training they need to preserve this habitat and maintain
    this critical natural resource.
        This Act establishes a 3-year demonstration project providing $4
    million each year to help establish programs in Latin America and the
    Caribbean. These programs will manage and conserve neotropical
    migratory bird populations. Those eligible to participate will include
    national and international nongovernmental organizations and business
    interests, as well as U.S. Government entities.
        The key to this Act is cooperation among nongovernmental
    organizations. The Federal share of each project's cost is never to
    exceed 33 percent, and half the non-Federal contribution must be in
    cash, not in-kind contributions.
        The approach taken by this legislation differs from that of current
    programs in that it is proactive and, by avoiding a crisis management
    approach, may prove significantly more cost effective. In addition,
    this legislation does not call for complicated and expensive
    bureaucratic structures such as councils, commissions or multi-tiered
    oversight structures. Further, this legislation will bring needed
    attention and expertise to areas now receiving relatively little
    attention in the area of environmental degradation.
        This legislation has the support of the National Audubon Society,
    the American Bird Conservancy and the Ornithological Council. As I
    understand it, the Fish and Wildlife Service has a letter of support
    currently working its way through OMB. I expect the Fish and Wildlife
    Service will recommend several small changes and anticipate that most,
    if not all, of them will be acceptable.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of this
    committee for considering this legislation and allowing me the
    opportunity to comment. I look forward to working with all of you in
    the effort to enhance the protection of migratory bird habitat.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Hon. Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senator from
                             the State of Kentucky
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the members of the
    committee for holding these hearings and allowing me to testify in
    support of S. 263, the Bear Protection Act. This legislation, is aimed
    at protecting the American bear population from the growing illegal
    trade in bear parts, in which at least 18 Asian countries are known to
    participate. The poaching of bears is a national problem that is
    destined to become worse. Currently, there are enforcement and
    jurisdictional loopholes, which exist as a result of a patchwork of
    State laws, that allow this illegal poaching to flourish. I believe
    that we have a real opportunity, if we act now, to protect the bear
    populations in this country from individuals seeking to profit from the
    slaughter and sale of the organs of these magnificent animals.
        Mr. Chairman, as you may know, bear viscera, such as gall bladders
    and bile, is a very popular ingredient in traditional Asian medicine.
    It is used to treat everything from heart disease to hangovers, and is
    also popular as an ingredient in luxury shampoos and as an aphrodisiac.
    Because of the popularity of bear parts in these products, bear
    populations, including the panda, sloth, sun, and Asiatic black bears
    have been hunted to near-extinction in Asia. All of these bear
    populations are listed under the Convention on International Trade in
    Endangered Species (CITES), Appendix I. This classification is the
    highest level of protection provided to an animal species. However,
    these bear populations remain threatened by the high demand and black
    market trade in exotic and traditional medicine cures. Moreover,
    American bear species are now in more danger, since the dramatic
    decline of bear populations outside the United States has led poachers
    to turn to American bears to fill the increasing demand.
        I am pleased to report that U.S. bear populations have, for the
    most part, remained stable. But the increasing trade in bear parts
    poses a serious threat. It is estimated that the number of black bears
    in the United States is nearly 400,000. Brown bear populations, which
    include Grizzly, are estimated at 40,000, with less than 1,000 in the
    lower 48 States.
        Each year, nearly 40,000 black bears are legally hunted in 36
    States and Canada. Unfortunately, it has been estimated that roughly
    the same number is illegally poached every year, according to John
    Doggett, former chief of law enforcement for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service. This number is expected to increase as the source of Asian
    bears declines and the demand for bear viscera continues to grow.
        According to various reports, including those from the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service, hundreds of bear carcasses are turning up in the
    United States and Canada, completely intact, except for missing
    gallbladders, paws, and claws.
        Since 1981, State and Federal wildlife agents have conducted many
    successful undercover operations to stop the illegal hunting and sale
    of bear gallbladders. In 1988, Federal wildlife officials engaged in
    ``Operation Smokey'' in the Great Smokey Mountains National Park. These
    efforts uncovered 368 illegal black bear kills. In 1994, an
    investigation uncovered a group arranging illegal bear hunts for South
    Koreans in California. It was determined that at least 30 to 35 bears
    were killed as a result of these trips. Last year, in Michigan, there
    was an incident reported in which a 350-pound male bear was found dead,
    having had its meat, paws, and gallbladder removed. The officer leading
    the investigation stated that ``whoever shot the bear wanted the highly
    salable parts of the animal which can bring very big prices in illegal
    trade.'' As recently as this year, undercover investigations conducted
    by State and Federal officials in California and Utah uncovered cases
    in which poachers were circumventing State laws in an effort to obtain
    bear gallbladders for sale to Asia.
        Mr. Chairman, the main reason behind these astronomical numbers is
    greed. In fact, in South Korea, bear gall bladders are worth more than
    their weight in gold, fetching a price of about $10,000 a piece! It is
    estimated that in my State of Kentucky, there are only 50-100 bears
    remaining in the wild. This is in stark contrast to the time when black
    bears roamed free across the Appalachian mountains, through the rolling
    hills of the bluegrass, all the way to the Mississippi River.
    Obviously, times have changed and we cannot restore the numbers of
    bears that we once had, but we can ensure that the remaining bears are
    not sold for profit to the highest bidder. This is a growing problem--a
    national problem--and I, for one, will not stand by and allow our own
    bear populations to be decimated by poachers.
        Currently, U.S. law enforcement officials have little power to
    address the poaching of bears and the sale of their parts in an
    effective manner. The Department of the Interior has neither the
    manpower nor the budget to test all bear parts sold legally in the
    United States. Without extensive testing, law enforcement officials
    cannot determine if gall bladders or other parts were taken from
    threatened of endangered species. This problem perpetuates the poaching
    of endangered or threatened bears.
        Mr. Chairman, due to the patchwork of State laws, poachers are
    effectively able to ``launder'' the gall through the eight States that
    permit the sale of bear parts. The outright ban on the trade, sale, or
    barter of bear viscera, including items that claim to contain bear
    parts, will close the existing loopholes and will allow State and
    Federal wildlife officials to focus their limited resources on much
    needed conservation efforts.
        The Bear Protection Act will establish national guidelines for
    trade in bear parts, but it will not weaken any existing State laws
    that have been instituted to deal with this issue. The Lacey Act,
    enacted in 1900, was the first Federal wildlife law intended to put an
    end to the interstate traffic of animals illegally killed in their
    State of origin. Unfortunately, this legislation has been ineffective
    in reducing the laundering of bear parts through those States that
    permit their sale. As long as a few States permit this action to go on,
    poaching for profit will continue.
        To effectively manage their own bear populations, States need a
    minimum level of protection. This is also true if we are to curtail the
    international trade in bear parts. Since a number of countries,
    including Taiwan and South Korea, have not signed the Convention on
    International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), it is difficult to
    enforce this agreement. In recognition of this reality, the most recent
    CITES conference, to which the United States was a party, urged all
    parties to the convention to take immediate action to eliminate the
    illegal trade in bear parts. The United States delegation, headed by
    Donald Barry, Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks at the
    Department of Interior, coauthored the Conservation of and Trade in
    Bears Resolution, which propounded the adoption of national legislation
    to deter the illegal trade. This resolution was passed unanimously by
    the CITES convention in June, 1997. To this end, we can greatly assist
    in protecting American bear populations by passing this legislation in
    the Senate. Mr. Chairman, I request that a copy of this resolution be
    included with my statement in the record.
        This bill also instructs the Secretary of the Interior and the
    United States Trade Representative to establish a dialog with the
    appropriate countries to coordinate efforts aimed at curtailing the
    international bear trade. Obviously, efforts to reduce the demand in
    Asia are of the utmost importance. Moreover, efforts to encourage
    foreign governments to increase usage of synthetic or other natural
    products as an alternative to bear gall will greatly improve the
    situation.
        Efforts to bolster protection in Canada should also be a priority.
    Canada has mandated fewer across-the-board protections of their bear
    populations and do not prohibit the sale of bear viscera in all
    Provinces. Canada and the United States share thousands of miles of
    open border that can't possible be adequately monitored to stop
    poaching or smugglers. These actions must be stopped if we are to
    effectively protect our bears.
        It is important to note that my bill would in no way affect legal
    hunting of bears. Hunters would still be allowed to keep trophies and
    furs of bears killed during legal hunts. I believe that S. 263 is
    crafted narrowly enough to deal with the poaching of the American bears
    for profit, while still ensuring the rights of the American sportsmen.
        Mr. Chairman, it is important that we act now to protect the
    American bear population, just as it is important that Congress pass
    legislation to protect rhinos and tigers, whose populations are in
    grave danger overseas. I believe that we have the opportunity to pass
    proactive legislation to ensure that America's bears do not suffer the
    same fate as so many Asian bears or rhinos and tigers in Asia and
    Africa. If we act now, we can stop the poaching of bears, which left
    unchecked, will surely lead to their extinction.
        I would like to thank the Chairman, Senator Chafee, for holding
    this hearing. I urge my colleagues to join me, and 53 other Senators,
    in support of this much needed legislation.
        Senator Chafee. Just in passing--it didn't have anything to
    do with your testimony--how is the lamprey eel doing and how
    are you doing with that out there?
        Mr. Crane. That's still a big challenge. The Great Lakes
    Fishery Commission, of course, has the primary role for lamprey
    control in the lakes. It's been an increasing challenge over
    recent years because the lamprey do better with cleaner water
    and, as the water has been cleaned up in the Great Lakes, more
    tributaries have been available for the lamprey to spawn. So it
    continues to be a big challenge for the Great Lakes Fishery
    Commission and the other fisheries management agencies.
        Senator Chafee. Ms. Krival, as you know, the refuge
    volunteer bill that we have, S. 2244, establishes a pilot
    project to hire volunteer coordinators. You've had a lot of
    experience in all of this. What do you think of that idea?
        Ms. Krival. I think it is very important. In a recent
    training program at the National Conservation Training Center,
    I was giving a program on volunteer programs and ways in which
    they could be organized and so on, and I asked the group of
    refuge managers and National Park superintendents how many of
    them had volunteer programs. It was 100 percent. Then I said,
    ``How many of you feel that they're going well?'' Well, the
    hands weren't quite so active.
        It sounds as though it should be very simple. If you get a
    hundred gung-ho volunteers who love their refuge and they want
    to do something for the refuge, it sounds as though that should
    be easily done. It's not. Somebody has to be in charge.
    Somebody has to ask the volunteer what kind of skills he has.
    Somebody has to set up a program. It really needs someone to
    coordinate.
        Senator Chafee. Well, I agree with you. It's sort of like
    getting political volunteers. They all want to go to work but
    then you've got to make sure you give them something
    constructive to do to keep their enthusiasm and match their
    talents with the jobs that might be available.
        Ms. Krival. Yes. And sometimes training them.
        Senator Chafee. And training, that's right.
        Mr. Crane, in connection with S. 659, we have so many
    existing authorities, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered
    Species Act--couldn't they implement the recommendations that
    come forward from the studies?
        Mr. Crane. We really feel that this Act is necessary
    because the coordination office that has been set up has really
    been instrumental in building partnerships in the Great Lakes
    region. A lot of the other Federal agencies have similar
    coordination offices. We feel that this has really benefited
    the Fish and Wildlife Service in having this office that
    coordinates activities not only within the agency itself, but
    also with the whole range of Great Lakes agencies and
    institutions that are present.
        So, we would hate to see that office not be available to
    the Service, and we really feel that it is best equipped to
    help implement those study recommendations. And through a
    series of MOUs, as I had mentioned, I think they really have
    the infrastructure in place to efficiently move forward and
    implement the program.
        Senator Chafee. Mr. Taylor, I don't think anybody, and
    certainly I'm sure you don't, wants any trade in the United
    States on bear parts. So what's the harm in doing it? As I
    understood the other witnesses, their point was, true, it's not
    a problem with our domestic bear population now, but it could
    well be. And there are certain anecdotal and more positive
    indications that there have been instances of the gall bladder
    or the feet, or whatever it might be, being cutoff and bodies
    of those bears discovered. So what's the harm with going ahead
    and doing efforts to prohibit it?
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think the
    appropriate question to ask is, how are the States, where, as
    you are well aware, the legal authority and responsibility for
    conservation of bears within their borders largely lies, how
    are the States doing in management of bear populations? And the
    answer has to be, resoundingly, very well.
        As you're also aware, Mr. Chairman, we have a unique legal
    relationship in this country between the States and the Federal
    Government when it comes to management of our fish and wildlife
    resources. I think it's fair to say that that relationship and
    the conservation program that it has engendered is justifiably
    the envy of the rest of the world.
        Mr. Chairman, there would be no hesitation within the
    States to further restrict what legal trade exists now in
    indigenous bear parts or products if there was any
    substantiation at all that this was contributing significantly
    to the demand for Asian bear market or certainly to the decline
    of the U.S. bear populations. We simply cannot substantiate,
    and the Fish and Wildlife Service has corroborated this in a
    paper that they gave last year at an international symposium on
    bear parts, that there is evidence that illegal poaching of
    U.S. bear is contributing significantly to the Asian market,
    nor is there any evidence that illegal poaching of U.S. bear is
    contributing significantly to the decline of U.S. bear
    populations.
        Senator Chafee. OK. Well, I want to thank you all very,
    very much for coming, and thank the previous panels likewise.
        What we would like to do is have a markup on these various
    bills. We're shooting toward July 22, a couple of weeks from
    now.
        So thank you all very much for coming.
        That concludes the hearing.
        [Whereupon, at 10:48 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
    reconvene at the call of the chair.]
        [Texts of bills and statements submitted for the record
    follow:]
     Prepared Statement of John Rogers, Deputy Director for the U.S. Fish
                and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
        Good Morning Mr. Chairman. I am John Rogers, the Deputy Director
    for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I appreciate this opportunity
    to testify on a number of fish and wildlife bills before the committee.
        s. 1970, the neotropical migratory bird conservation act of 1998
        Let's begin with S. 1970, the Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Act of 1998. We would like to take this opportunity to
    thank Senator Abraham for his support and sponsorship of S. 1970.
        The Service--through 4 bilateral treaties--has responsibility for
    maintaining healthy populations of some 778 species of migratory
    nongame birds and 58 species of migratory game birds, approximately 350
    species of which (the so-called ``neotropical migrants'') migrate
    between the Caribbean/Latin America and North America. Migratory birds
    continue to face enormous and increasing challenges. Despite our
    current efforts, many populations of migratory birds continue to
    decline, some quite markedly. For example, 124 species of migratory
    birds are currently on the list of Migratory Nongame Birds of
    Management Concern. If population trajectories of these birds stay on
    their present course, the next place for these species will be the
    Endangered Species Act, or worse yet, possible extinction. Ninety
    species of North American birds presently are listed on ESA. Mexico
    presently lists some 390 bird species as endangered, threatened,
    vulnerable, or rare. These current and projected future losses have
    far-reaching economic, social, ecological, and recreational
    implications.
        Birds are important to us for many reasons--whether we reside in
    North America, Latin America, or the Caribbean. Birdwatching and other
    forms of bird-related recreation are tremendous pastimes in North
    America, with a growing interest in the Caribbean and Latin American
    countries. Nearly 70 million Americans spend more than $20 billion each
    year participating in bird-related recreation. Birdwatching is
    America's fastest growing major form of outdoor recreation. Birds
    prevent billions of dollars of economic losses each year by eating
    crop-damaging insect pests and weed seeds in North and Latin America
    and the Caribbean. They are important pollinators of many commercially
    valuable plants. Neotropical migratory birds are thus an important
    component of biological diversity in the Western Hemisphere. The
    American public expects the Fish and Wildlife Service to enhance its
    efforts to conserve migratory birds in support of these vast economic,
    ecological, and social benefits.
        The Service and our international partners have recognized for many
    years that only a well-coordinated strategy and set of actions on
    breeding and wintering grounds and stopover sites can prevent
    populations of migratory species from declining. Neotropical migratory
    birds spend approximately 5 months of the year at Caribbean/Latin
    American wintering sites, 4 months at North American breeding sites,
    and 3 months en route to these areas during spring and autumn
    migrations. The nature of this ``shared trust'' resource makes
    migratory bird management a true international challenge. The greatest
    challenge is to halt the precipitous declines of many of these
    species--due in major part to habitat destruction and degradation. S.
    1970 is a major step in the right direction in helping to halt and even
    reverse this trend. The legislation will aid in the international
    conservation and management of neotropical migratory birds. Severely
    declining bird species are causing grave concerns among natural
    resource managers and the public in both Caribbean/Latin American
    countries and in North America. S. 1970 will help the United States and
    our international partners reverse species declines, conserving bird
    populations before they reach the point of requiring protection under
    the ESA. Equally as important, the legislation will help keep our
    ``common birds common,'' preventing the expenditure of enormous amounts
    of tax dollars and precluding the likely legal and public relations
    battles that surround listing issues.
        Mr. Chairman, this legislation goes a long way in promoting the
    effective conservation and management of neotropical migratory birds.
    We do, however, have several recommended changes that will make this
    initiative even more effective in sustaining populations of these--
    declining species, in better collaborating with our international
    partners, and in garnering a groundswell of support both in North
    America and in the Caribbean/Latin America.
        As currently worded, the legislation directs attention to these
    long-distance travelers during only one part of their annual cycle.
    This premise is inconsistent with the unanimous belief among scientists
    that conservation actions are necessary in both Latin America/Caribbean
    and in North America if the population problems of neotropical migrants
    are to be stemmed. By amending section 3 of S. 1970 to include both
    U.S.-based projects as well as those in the Caribbean and in Latin
    America, conservation benefits will be maximized in wintering,
    breeding, and migration areas. Projects in the United States should be
    for the same species for which projects are being undertaken in Latin
    America and the Caribbean, thus ensuring that the projects are
    complimentary. A multi-national effort will provide an excellent
    opportunity to highlight to the American public the importance of an
    international approach to conservation. This is a win-win situation for
    the birds, the public, North America, and our international partners.
        In the Findings section of the Bill, we suggest including a
    discussion of existing initiatives that are working to improve the
    conservation of neotropical migrants. The language should include a
    clarification that the aim of this legislation is to link, bolster, and
    augment these conservation efforts rather than create new and separate
    initiatives. For example, numerous public-private bird conservation
    partnerships have been developed during the past few years but, because
    of shortfalls, have not yet maximized their contributions to bird
    conservation. Partners in Flight, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird
    Reserve Network, a colonial waterbird conservation plan, the North
    American Waterfowl Management Plan, marshbird and raptor monitoring
    action plans and thousands of North American private and public
    partners that these initiatives bring with them all stand to benefit
    from this legislation. The infrastructure and mechanisms are already in
    place for North American bird conservation. S. 1970 can provide the
    critical stimulus to deliver this conservation on the ground in very
    tangible ways.
        S. 1970 can become a perfect ``complement'' for the North American
    Waterfowl Management Plan, which has funded well over $1 billion of
    wetland habitat restoration and enhancement projects in Mexico, the
    United States, and Canada during the past decade. Collaborative efforts
    with the NAWMP would allow S. 1970 to ``partner up'' with a program
    which has a tremendous amount of leverage and is anxious to implement
    habitat projects that complement--not duplicate--the waterfowl focus of
    its habitat conservation efforts. In addition, because neotropical
    migratory birds share habitats with many other species, this
    legislation's true impact will go far beyond just neotropical migratory
    birds, including resident species in North and Latin America and the
    Caribbean.
        Regarding cost sharing in section 4(e) of the Bill, we recommend
    the requirement that a non-Federal U.S. cash match be obligatory only
    for those projects submitted by U.S. entities. Projects submitted
    directly by Latin American and Caribbean institutions would have the
    option of generating the required two-thirds match locally in either
    hard currency or in in-kind support. This approach will better promote
    the long-term sustainability of projects in host countries and will
    facilitate the participation of small, but dedicated, local entities
    with limited funding or other resources.
        Concerning committee membership in section 5, we recommend
    expanding the committee to include no more than eight additional voting
    members, at least half of whom represent non-Federal entities actively
    involved in bird conservation. Two of these additional voting members
    should be the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International
    Development as permanent members, to ensure full coordination with U.S.
    foreign policy and USAID's ongoing 530 million per year programs to
    preserve biodiversity and habitat in Latin America and the Caribbean.
    The remainder of these positions would be rotated every 4 years. We
    also propose that the number of non-voting members be raised to a
    maximum of three from Latin America and the Caribbean to provide
    technical expertise for proposals originating from tropical locations.
    Such regional representation will also help to orient the committee to
    the realities of implementing projects in this region. Consideration
    should also be given to involving Canada as an observer/non-voting
    member of this committee. Also within section 5, concerning the duties
    of this committee, we recommend adding the function that grant
    processes be coordinated and facilitated among entities involved in
    neotropical bird conservation.
        To heighten the interest in this initiative and to increase the
    number of eligible partners through Federal matching funds, we suggest
    increasing the authorizing appropriations ceiling in section 9 from $4
    million to 58 million for fiscal year 1999-2001. I would note that
    funding for this program will be appropriated to the Department of the
    Interior and not the U.S. Agency for International Development's or the
    Department of State. As you are certainly aware, the conservation needs
    of migratory birds are great and we are confident that our private and
    State partners will show a tremendous interest in participating in this
    program.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while we support S. 1970, we believe
    that our recommended changes will substantially strengthen and improve
    this Bill.
             s. 2094, the fish and wildlife revenue enhancement act
        The next bill on the committee's agenda is S. 2094, the Fish and
    Wildlife Revenue Enhancement Act. The Administration supports strongly
    S. 2094 which would enable the Secretary of the Interior to more
    effectively utilize the proceeds of sales of certain items. Enactment
    of this bill will allow more efficient use of the proceeds received
    from the sale of abandoned or forfeited wildlife parts and products
    which are not endangered or threatened species, and do not include
    migratory birds or marine mammals. It would authorize all proceeds of
    such sales to be used for rewards and other incidental expenses as
    provided for in the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 and the Endangered
    Species Act of 1973. The use of these funds would also be expanded to
    pay the costs associated with shipping, storage, and disposal of
    wildlife items.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with enforcing several
    laws that protect a wide variety of fish and wildlife species. The
    Service has numerous outreach programs to educate the public about
    these laws, and Service personnel routinely answer questions and help
    those who seek assistance to comply with the law. Unfortunately,
    violations do occur. Wildlife parts and products that are the fruits of
    violations of Federal wildlife laws are subject to being abandoned or
    forfeited to the United States. The majority of these items are shipped
    to the National Wildlife property Repository near Denver, Colorado, for
    storage and disposal. Those items not shipped to the Repository are
    retained at the location of the seizure and normally used for
    scientific and educational purposes.
        Currently, there are approximately 450,000 wildlife items at the
    Repository, and many additional items stored in warehouses across the
    country. The Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 authorizes the
    Secretary of the Interior to dispose of these items in a manner that he
    deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, loan, gift, sale, or
    destruction. The Service's priority is to donate or loan these wildlife
    items to scientific and educational organizations. Recipients include
    museums where they are displayed to educate the public, universities
    where they are used for research, and elementary schools where teachers
    use them to help students learn about our world's wildlife resources. A
    wide variety of wildlife items are provided to schools for use in their
    environmental education projects through the Service's ``Cargo for
    Conservation'' and ``Suitcase for Survival'' programs.
        Between July 1, 1995, and February 1, 1997, the National Wildlife
    Property Repository received 553 boxes of forfeited or abandoned items
    consisting of 117,000 individual pieces of wildlife parts or products.
    During this period, 271 educational kits, containing 5,706 items, were
    sent to various scientific and educational organizations. These items
    were shipped at no cost to the recipient.
        Of the 450,000 wildlife items now in the Service's inventory of
    property that has been forfeited or abandoned to the United States,
    some 200,000 are surplus to the needs of scientific and educational
    programs and could legally be sold at auction. These potentially
    ``salable'' items do not include migratory birds, eagles, threatened or
    endangered species, species listed on Appendix I of the Convention on
    International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or
    marine mammals--all of which are protected from such commercialization.
    It has taken about 10 years for this stock of surplus wildlife items to
    accumulate. Approximately 10 percent of these items have been forfeited
    to the United States pursuant to a criminal or civil action related to
    a specific violation of Federal wildlife laws. The remaining 90 percent
    were voluntarily abandoned to the United States by the alleged
    defendant(s) to avoid involvement in a proposed forfeiture action.
        We estimate that an auction of these backlogged, forfeited and
    abandoned items would generate over $1 million in proceeds. There are,
    however, insufficient appropriated funds to pay the 14 percent
    auctioneer commission, or other expenses related to such an auction.
    Currently, the Service cannot pay these costs from auction proceeds.
    Both the Lacey Act and Endangered Species Act authorize sums received
    from the sale of forfeited property to be used to pay for rewards or
    for the cost of storage of wildlife pending disposition of civil or
    criminal proceedings. No wildlife statute addresses the use of proceeds
    from the sale of abandoned property, so these funds are submitted to
    the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts and are not available for
    program operations. The Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 gives
    the Secretary of the Interior the authority to sell forfeited and
    abandoned items, but it is silent as to how the proceeds from the sales
    may be used.
        If enacted, S. 2094 would accomplish two necessary functions.
    First, it would direct all proceeds from the sale of surplus wildlife
    property to the reward and incidental expense account, which is
    authorized by both the Lacey Act and the Endangered Species Act.
    Currently, only the proceeds from the sales of forfeited wildlife
    property are deposited in this account. S. 2094 would authorize
    proceeds from the sale of abandoned items to also be deposited in the
    reward and incidental expense account.
        Second, S. 2094 would expand the uses of the Reward and Incidental
    Expense Account to include authority to pay costs associated with
    storage, shipping, and processing of fish, wildlife, plants, and other
    property that have been forfeited or abandoned to the United States.
    This account currently may be used only to (1) pay rewards to persons
    who furnish information that leads to an arrest, a criminal conviction,
    civil penalty assessment, or forfeiture of property for any violation
    of either the Lacey or Endangered Species Acts or regulations issued
    thereunder, and (2) cover the costs incurred by any person providing
    temporary care for any fish, wildlife, or plant pending the disposition
    of any criminal or civil proceeding alleging a violation of either Act
    with respect to that fish, wildlife, or plant. Authorized costs that
    could be paid from this account would be expanded to include: (a)
    shipping of such items from one location to another; (b) storage,
    inventory, and security of such items; (c) appraisal of such items; (d)
    sale or other disposal of such items, including auctioneer expenses;
    (e) payment of any valid lien against said property; and (f) processing
    and shipping of eagles and other migratory birds to Native Americans.
        Another benefit of enacting S. 2094 would be the authority for the
    Service to use the proceeds from the sale of these items to pay for
    processing and shipping of eagles and other migratory birds to Native
    Americans. The Service recognizes its trust responsibility to Native
    Americans and the need to accommodate their religious beliefs, which
    include the use of eagles and other protected species for religious
    purposes. Over a thousand dead eagles are received annually by the
    National Eagle Repository in Denver, Colorado. Most have been either
    shot, electrocuted, died while being cared for by a rehabilitation
    facility, or hit by a vehicle. In 1996, the National Eagle Repository
    filled 1,320 requests from Native Americans for eagles (996), eagle
    feathers (82), and other raptors (242). These eagles are processed and
    shipped to Native Americans to be used for religious purposes. The
    Service supplies boxes for shipping and dry ice, and the birds are
    shipped at no cost to Native Americans.
        Mr. Chairman, we believe this bill, if enacted, would allow us to
    operate more efficiently two important programs: distribution of
    wildlife property to scientific and educational institutions and the
    distribution of eagles to Native Americans for religious purposes.
    h.r. 3113, the reauthorization of the rhinoceros and tiger conservation
    act of 1994 s. 361 and h.r. 2807, the rhino and tiger product labeling
                                      act
        Next, I'll turn to H.R. 3113, the Reauthorization of the Rhinoceros
    and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. and S. 361 and H.R. 2807, the
    Senate and House bills for the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act.
    The Department strongly supports the reauthorization of the Rhinoceros
    and Tiger Conservation Act through the year 2004 as passed by the House
    on March 30, 1998. We also support the enactment of the product
    labeling legislation as passed by the House on April 28, 1998. We
    appreciate the House's support and passage of these two bills and
    commend the Congress for its commitment and continuous support to
    conserve these important endangered species. While we are sympathetic
    to the objectives of S. 361 as introduced by Senator Jeffords and
    supported by eight cosponsors, we believe that it would be more
    practical to adopt the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act as passed
    by the House.
        It is a great pleasure for me to be here today to address a subject
    of international importance, the drastic decline of rhino and tiger
    populations in Africa and Asia, due in large part to poaching for the
    traditional medicine trade. It is clear that we would not be able to
    turn this situation around without aggressive action on two fronts:
    expanded assistance to range countries to build their capacity to
    conserve rhinos, tigers, and their essential habitats; and concerted
    international pressure to halt the terrible trade in rhino and tiger
    parts and products.
        I note with great satisfaction that these are also exactly the
    areas covered by the legislation which you have asked me to address
    today, and that we are truly building a bipartisan consensus to
    continue the U.S. leadership role in conservation of these magnificent
    but imperiled species. Today I would like to summarize for you some of
    the important actions we have already undertaken for rhino and tiger
    conservation, and outline the reasons why there is an urgent need for
    more action--action which will be enormously enhanced by the
    legislation you have put forward today.
        The Interior Department, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, has had a long history of proactive programs on behalf of
    endangered species and their habitats in Asia and Africa. The Service's
    two decades of conservation efforts in India and South Asia, for
    example, emphasizing local institutional development and training,
    greatly facilitated local wildlife researchers and mangers protecting
    their resources more effectively. However, prior to 1994, this effort
    was chronically underfunded, particularly for programs outside of
    India, with available resources falling far short of the conservation
    needs. In Africa, the Service had built a successful program for
    elephant conservation, assisting a number of countries under the
    African Elephant Conservation Fund, but that program could at best
    produce only indirect benefits for African rhinos, despite the fact
    that rhino populations were in far more desperate straits than
    elephants.
        Let me summarize what we know of the situation facing our world's
    remaining tiger and rhino populations.
        The situation with most of the world's remaining rhinos in Africa
    and Asia is indeed very serious. Poaching for rhino horn is the major
    threat for all five species, and habitat degradation is also a
    significant threat for the Asian species which live in tropical rain
    forests. All three species of Asian rhinos are in danger of extinction,
    two critically so. The total population numbers for all three Asian
    species combined may in fact be less than the number of black rhinos
    remaining in Africa, in spite of the fact that the decline of the
    African species has received much more publicity over the last decade.
        While the overall paucity of rhino numbers is one factor of
    concern, another is their distribution. The Javan rhino is the rarest,
    with fewer than an estimated 100 individuals surviving. Most are in a
    single protected area in Indonesia, with a few more in an unprotected
    area in Vietnam. Although the Sumatran rhino numbers may be slightly
    larger, at 250-450 animals, its situation is considered the most
    critical, because of its fragmented distribution in small pockets of
    Sumatra, Peninsula Malaysia, Sabah. Tiny remnants may remain in
    Sarawak, Thailand, Myanmar, and Laos, but if they still exist at all
    their viability is very low. The Indian rhino was once in the same
    condition as the other Asian rhinos, but a vigorous effort by
    governments in India and Nepal has succeeded in increasing its numbers
    to over 2000 animals. However, this species is still under serious
    threat, particularly from poaching, and increased protection is still
    needed to ensure its survival.
        In Africa, the situation for the black rhino and the Northern white
    rhino is similar. Over the past few decades, black rhino populations
    have declined by at least 96 percent, due to poaching for the trade in
    traditional medicines and dagger handles. The Northern white rhino has
    been reduced to nine individuals in zoos and a wild population of no
    more than 30 individuals in a single national park in the Democratic
    Republic of the Congo. Only the Southern white rhino in South Africa is
    prospering; here, intensive protection and management have brought its
    numbers in the wild to almost 8,000.
        Wild tigers are arguably in even worse peril. The Cat Specialist
    Group of the IUCN-World Conservation Union has assembled information
    from government sources and independent specialists in tiger range
    countries about the status of the world's wild tiger population. Their
    best estimate--given the secretive nature of tigers and the lack of
    resources in range countries to conduct accurate surveys--is that there
    are no more than 5,000 to 7,500 remaining tigers. There are no
    comparable scientific data from earlier times, but with suitable
    habitat and prey the tiger is a prolific hunter and breeder, and there
    were undoubtedly many tens of thousands of tigers up to a century ago.
    Unfortunately, since then, loss of tiger habitat, reduction in prey
    populations, and deliberate tiger killing have taken a terrible toll:
    three of the recognized subspecies of tigers have become extinct, and
    the remaining five subspecies have come under severe threat. During
    this same time period, human populations have increased from about 1.5
    billion to nearly six billion, resulting in extensive conversion of
    forest for human use, loss of tiger habitat, and a steep decline of
    tigers and their prey. Furthermore, over the last decade, poaching and
    illegal trade--driven by the demand for bones and other parts of the
    tiger for the oriental medicine market--have become an increasing
    threat.
        In most of its 14 range countries, the tiger has adequate legal
    protection on paper. International commerce in tigers and their
    products is banned under the Convention on International Trade in
    Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and Laos is the
    only one of the 14 range countries not a Party to CITES. Even the
    principal consumers, China, Taiwan and South Korea, have banned trade--
    after strong pressure from the United States. However, despite these
    existing national and international legal mechanisms, the enforcement
    is sometimes weak or nonexistent, due to a combination of factors
    including poor communication and coordination, lack of local
    governmental support, inadequate or no local infrastructure, funds,
    personnel, or equipment.
        While the status of tigers and many rhino populations is bleak, the
    rhino situations in South Africa and India give us some reasons for
    optimism. Where governments and private conservation organizations have
    made a serious commitment to conservation, these animals can survive
    and prosper. To accomplish this, however, they need our help. This is
    the kind of help made possible by the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation
    Act.
          reauthorization of the rhinoceros and tiger conservation act
        The Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994--patterned after
    the African Elephant Conservation Act, which has made an enormous
    contribution to restoring elephant populations--is a clear indication
    that the American people are concerned with the fate of tigers and
    rhinos as endangered species. It assigned responsibility for
    implementation to the Department of the Interior, in consultation with
    the Administrator of the Agency for International Development, for
    undertaking a rhino and tiger conservation program. Within the
    Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was
    given the lead to administer the Act, because of its 20 years of
    experience in administering programs in Asia and Africa. The first
    congressional appropriation to the fund was for $200,000 in fiscal year
    1996; this amount was doubled to $400,000 in fiscal year 1997 and
    another $400,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
        To initiate this new program, the Fish and Wildlife Service sent
    out a call for proposals to an extensive mailing list of potential
    cooperators, developed from its long experience with regional and range
    country agencies and organizations in Asia and Africa, including CITES
    partners and the CITES Secretariat. The Act gave clear guidance that
    priority was to be given to proposals which directly supported and
    enhanced wild rhinoceros and tiger populations and which included
    matching funds. A review panel composed of representatives from the
    Service and the Agency for International Development--a very beneficial
    partnership--was set up to evaluate proposals received and recommend
    the awarding of funds.
        During the 1996-1997 grant cycle, 68 proposals were submitted for
    consideration, and 77 new proposals have been received thus far in
    fiscal year 1998. Of the total 145 proposals received, 30 have so far
    been funded in 10 range countries in Africa and Asia, at a cost of
    $582,000 disbursed or committed. Another 25 grant applicants have been
    provided suggestions about how their proposals can be modified so that
    they might meet the criteria for approval.
        This is a small grant program, but it is amazing how much even a
    small amount of money can mean to our partners in other countries. The
    simple act of providing boots, raincoats, radios, and basic training
    can make an enormous difference in the ability of rangers in India or
    Tanzania to undertake effective monitoring and anti-poaching patrols.
    Something more intangible--but often even more important--is the boost
    to their morale when they realize that we the United States care enough
    to help them. Some examples of current projects, and what they mean to
    rhino and tiger range countries:
         In India, the Fund is providing clothing, equipment, and
    radio networks to help guards stop poaching in Kaziranga National Park
    and Pobitora, Orang, and Laokhowa wildlife sanctuaries in Assam. While
    the Assam rhino conservation program is considered one of the best in
    the country, the lack of even the most basic protective clothing and
    equipment is illustrative of what is needed in many countries if we are
    to win the war against poaching. Project Manager Anne Wright reports
    that the new equipment provided by the Fund has given hope and
    encouragement for guards working long and dangerous assignments in
    difficult terrain. She intends to broaden this initial effort by
    obtaining critical transportation equipment and developing programs
    among local villagers to increase awareness and encourage reporting of
    illegal activity.
         In Viet Nam, where tiger habitats are highly fragmented
    and degraded, the Fund is helping researchers map areas such as Phuoc
    Son/Tra My Reserve, which is populated by ethnic minorities and
    possibly up to 30 tigers. Tigers which kill livestock are in turn
    killed by the villagers to protect their herds or profit from poaching.
    This collaborative project will assess the tigers' presence in the
    reserve and surrounding forest and develop a model for reducing
    conflicts between human land use and tiger conservation.
         In Tanzania, extensive poaching has fragmented and reduced
    the Tanzanian black rhino population to less than 100. The Selous Game
    Reserve, one of the largest protected areas in Africa, may be the last
    hope for survival of the black rhinoceros in that country. The Fund has
    enabled surveillance and monitoring training for field staff and a
    survey on the Selous rhino population that will yield specific
    recommendations for establishing potential Intensive Protection Zones
    in the reserve.
        In the short history of the program, the Service has received many
    comments about the utility and importance of the Fund, both within the
    United States and from other countries. Dr. Thomas Foose, of the
    International Rhino Foundation says that ``The Rhino and Tiger
    Conservation Fund is an important component of the entire package of
    partnerships. Many had origins before (the Fund), but it helps them
    flourish, and stimulates matching requirements.'' From India, Ms.
    Belinda Wright of the Wildlife Protection Society, says that ``FWS
    (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) is perhaps the one (organization) we
    respect the most, because we have had such a long and close interaction
    with them. They are genuinely aware of all the issues . . . they
    understand and care.''
        The Service has also developed a strong partnership with the
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's ``Save the Tiger Fund,''
    serving on the Council which oversees it and coordinating reviews for
    all of the project proposals received by each program.
        The Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund has gotten off to an
    excellent start over the past 3 years. The job has only just begun,
    however. There is much more work to do and no shortage of committed
    partners seeking our help in Africa and Asia. Reauthorization of the
    Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act will send a strong message that
    the American people care deeply about these resources of commitment by
    the U.S. Government to provide sufficient funding and continued support
    to the conservation of these key representatives of the Asian and
    African continents and fill an important void.
        The Administration supports the passage of H.R. 3113 and also seeks
    some technical amendments consistent with our FY99 budget proposal to
    consolidate the African elephant, Asian elephant, and rhino and tiger
    conservation funds under a Multinational Species Conservation Fund. The
    purpose of the consolidation would be to streamline bookkeeping and
    eliminate unnecessary duplication and overhead. Separate sub-accounts
    would be retained for the Rhino and Tiger Conservation program and each
    of the other specialized programs under this Fund.
               the rhino and tiger product labeling act/h.r. 2807
        I would now like to discuss the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling
    Act, introduced by Chairman Saxton. Chairman Saxton's bill, H.R. 2807,
    addresses a critical part of the remaining problem. Conservation
    assistance is only half of the job, however. In order to break the
    cycle of poaching and illegal trade which has devastated so many rhino
    and tiger populations, we must also work to break supply lines and
    remove rhino and tiger products from the marketplace.
        In 1993, we became aware that authorities in China and Taiwan were
    ignoring or even, in some cases, aiding and abetting a flourishing
    trade in rhino and tiger parts within their borders. It was determined
    that coordinated U.S. and international action were necessary. The
    Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman's Protective Act was invoked by
    certifying both China and Taiwan and CITES nations worked to obtain an
    international consensus on the need for corrective action. In response
    to a clear statement of our expectations for improvement in the
    situation, China took some immediate positive steps to improve their
    laws and enforcement. Taiwan failed to make similar progress, however,
    and in 1994 the President took the unprecedented step of applying trade
    sanctions. The sanctions--combined with continued efforts at
    constructive engagement--eventually resulted in enormous improvements
    on Taiwan. As a result, in 1995 the President was able to remove the
    sanctions, and the Pelly certification was lifted in 1996. With strong
    U.S. encouragement, Taiwan has continued these positive efforts.
        Unfortunately, not all of the problems with the trade in rhino and
    tiger parts is in Asia. There is also a thriving trade in medicines
    which are at least labeled as containing tiger or rhino parts in
    traditional medicine shops in major cities having large Asian
    communities all around the world--and we are not exempt from this
    problem in the United States. Recognizing this, in 1994 the Fish and
    Wildlife Service was asked to undertake a program to help remove these
    medicines from the U.S. marketplace. As a result, the Service began a
    pilot program in Los Angeles involving outreach to local Asian
    communities, incorporation of the plight of rhinos and tigers into the
    curriculum in local schools, and other community-based activities. In
    addition, in Los Angeles an interagency wildlife law enforcement task
    force has also made concentrated efforts to interdict shipments of
    wildlife products--including rhino and tiger medicines--with excellent
    results.
        The Los Angeles programs have clearly had an impact. A recent
    survey by TRAFFIC, the World Wildlife Fund's wildlife trade monitoring
    organization, found that of seven U.S. and Canadian cities, Los Angeles
    had by far the lowest incidence of medicines labeled as tiger and rhino
    medicines in traditional medicine shops. On the other hand, the survey
    also reveals the depth of the problem which we are facing in other
    cities, and highlights a continuing problem which no amount of
    educational outreach or enforcement task forces can solve--the lack of
    authority to take enforcement action against medicines which are
    labeled as containing tiger or rhino parts. Every year, Service
    wildlife inspectors all over the country routinely encounter shipments
    containing wildlife products labeled as containing protected species
    parts--especially tiger and rhino. These mass-produced products from
    Asia are destined to be sold as ``cure alls'' in traditional medicine
    shops. Investigations in Asia have clearly shown that rhino horn, tiger
    bone, and other tiger and rhino parts are used in manufacture of some
    of these medicines.
        Once these products reach the United States--even when their labels
    blatantly claim that the items contain rhino or tiger parts--the burden
    of proof is still on the Service to demonstrate scientifically whether
    the products contain what the label says. This is a time-consuming and
    expensive process. Forensics experts estimate a cost of up to $100,000
    to develop a DNA analysis test to identify any particular group of
    wildlife, such as all rhinos or all tigers, and the process would only
    work if DNA markers had not been destroyed when the product was
    manufactured. For example, if a product reported to contain tiger bone
    has been heated to high temperatures during compounding, a DNA analysis
    test could not be conclusive. The only substance which could be
    confirmed is the presence of calcium, an ingredient just as likely to
    represent cow bone and tiger bone.
        Given these results, seized items must often be returned to the
    importer because no violation of existing U.S. law can be shown. Some
    ports have chosen not to seize tiger bone products because the burden
    of proof with respect to content has made enforcement so difficult. As
    a results products claiming to contain tiger and rhino continue to be
    readily for sale. Even if some of these products contain no rhino or
    tiger parts, they serve as a smokescreen for other products which
    clearly do contain the real thing. As a result, such products continue
    to stimulate demand and feed a market that ultimately depends on the
    killing of these critically endangered species.
        H.R. 2807, the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act, would close
    this major gap in our existing laws by adding new criminal prohibitions
    to the existing Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act. The Administration
    strongly supports this new measure, which is designed to prohibit the
    importation and sale of products that claim to contain rhinoceros horn
    or tiger products. The proposed prohibition on import and export of
    such products will allow us to seize these illegal substances at U.S.
    ports of entry and demand their immediate forfeiture, and the
    prohibition on sale of these products will help keep stockpiles which
    are already in the country off store shelves. Furthermore, this bill is
    fully in keeping with an international consensus on the need for such
    legislation in every country. Recognizing that trade in rhino and tiger
    medicines is a global problem, the CITES Conference of the Parties has
    adopted a series of resolutions calling on all countries to adopt new
    legislation to control this trade. Resolution Conf. 9.13, for example,
    adopted in Fort Lauderdale in 1994, urges tiger range and consumer
    countries to prohibit trade in ``. . . products labeled as containing
    parts and derivatives of tiger.'' Resolution Conf. 10.19, adopted in
    Harare last year, asks parties to ensure that ``. . . their national
    legislation effectively controls trade in all parts and derivatives of
    species used for healing purposes and trade in medicinal products
    containing or purporting to contain them.'' [Emphasis added] Other
    countries are also moving forward to implement these CITES
    recommendations: the United Kingdom, for example, has adopted similar
    legislation which has enabled it to remove 20,000 items from shelves in
    traditional medicine shops in London alone.
        We note that in passing H.R. 2807 the House adopted amendments
    recommended by the Administration to include additional authority to
    seek civil penalties and forfeiture for violations of the prohibitions,
    definitions of who is subject to the law, and establishing court
    jurisdiction.
        In summary, the Administration is strongly in favor of the adoption
    of H.R. 2807 as passed by the House. It will help to ensure that
    commercial trade in rhino and tiger medicines in the United States does
    not undermine the benefits to range countries from congressional
    appropriations to the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund and compound
    the cost of conserving these species in the wild. Passage of H.R. 2807
    would complement and enhance our ongoing conservation efforts under the
    Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act, the Pelly Amendment, CITES, and other
    domestic and international measures. We believe that the Rhino and
    Tiger Product Labeling Act will help continue the global leadership
    role of the United States in rhino and tiger conservation.
           s. 659, the great lakes fish and wildlife restoration act
        Next, I'll address S. 659, a bill to reauthorize the Great Lakes
    Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990. The Administration supports
    S. 659 and its House companion bill, H.R. 1481, as an important step
    forward in restoring fish and wildlife resources in the Great Lakes. I
    would like to extend my appreciation to you and the rest of the
    committee for your interest in the restoration of the fish and wildlife
    resources of the Great Lakes Basin.
                      background on the great lakes basin
        The Great Lakes Basin is the largest system of fresh water on the
    planet and home to 10 percent of the U.S. and 25 percent of the
    Canadian populations. It represents the Nation's fourth largest
    coastline and provides essential habitat for endangered species and
    breeding areas for waterfowl, migratory birds, and fish. The Nation
    relies on the Great Lakes for a myriad of uses including the
    transportation of goods, hunting, boating and recreational and
    commercial fishing.
        The Great Lakes fish and wildlife resources and their associated
    habitats are especially important to the region and represent the
    foundation on which much of the region's economic vitality depends. A
    multitude of habitat types are found throughout the Great Lakes Basin;
    from the warmer, lower lakes to the deep, cold waters of Lake Superior.
    Each habitat type supports an array of species, ranging from lake
    whitefish, yellow perch, walleye, and lake trout, to countless bird
    species, both residential and migratory. As a result, outdoor
    recreation and tourism alone provides 515 billion to the region
    annually, with almost $7 billion originating from the fishing industry.
    Much of the region's cultural heritage is also based on the basin's
    fish and wildlife resources.
        Because of the varied uses and values of the Great Lakes and the
    complexity of problems that often occur, governing bodies have joined
    together to form some of the Nation's strongest interjurisdictional
    partnerships. Problems relating to DDT and eutrophication caught the
    public's attention in the 1960's, leading to the first Great Lakes
    Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the United States in 1972.
    With the subsequent 1978 agreement, the Nation witnessed a truly
    innovative approach to natural resource management; one that looked at
    the entire basin from an ecosystem perspective.
        Decimation of fish stocks due to sea lamprey predation and over-
    fishing brought forth the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries and the
    establishment of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (Commission). These
    developments led to an extraordinary effort to control a single
    nuisance species; an effort that continues successfully today. In 1981,
    the Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries was
    developed and implemented to facilitate the proper management of the
    fishery resources within the basin.
        Other issues ranging from toxic sedimentation, agricultural run-
    off, aquatic nuisance species invasions, and shore erosion have all
    required similar joint efforts. They rely not on just one or two
    government entities, but on all jurisdictions, ranging from Tribes,
    States, the Federal Government, local municipalities, environmental
    groups, and industries.
           the great lakes fish and wildlife restoration act of 1990
        Recognizing the importance of the basin's fish and wildlife
    resources, and the need to manage cooperatively, Congress passed the
    Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990 to evaluate the
    status of the basin's fishery resources and to develop appropriate
    recommendations to address the most pressing needs.
        Since 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in
    cooperation with many partners in the basin, has made significant
    progress in implementing provisions in the law. In 1995, the Service
    submitted the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study (Study)
    to Congress. The Study was developed by the Service's Great Lakes
    Coordination Office and Fishery Resources Offices in close
    collaboration with 76 State, Provincial, Tribal and Federal Great Lakes
    aquatic resource experts, in addition to representatives from academia
    and nongovernmental organizations. Four incremental drafts were
    prepared and submitted for review and comment, with improvements made
    after each review. The result was a broadly supported and widely
    heralded report containing meaningful and well-crafted recommendations.
        The study's 32 recommendations address concerns common to each of
    the Great Lakes and their watersheds and represent priorities not
    currently funded through any management agency. Recommendations range
    from eliminating nonindigenous species invasions to determining the
    impacts of hydroelectric facilities and dam operations on fish passage.
    Each recommendation was collaboratively developed and requires the
    involvement of all Great Lakes Basin partners for implementation.
        As directed by the Act, the Service also staffed and equipped
    Fishery Resources Offices in the Upper and Lower Great Lakes and a
    Great Lakes Coordination Office in Michigan. These offices have made
    great strides in managing the fishery resources of the Great Lakes.
    Current activities include:
         developing and overseeing implementation of a fish
    community, predator/prey model for Lake Michigan, Lake Huron and Lake
    Superior;
         participating with or chairing all Lake Technical
    Committees that provide critical information to Great Lakes management
    agencies (e.g. State & Tribal) for the proper management of Great Lakes
    fishery resources;
         utilizing artificial astro-turf incubators for stocked
    lake trout eggs to accelerate lake trout restoration;
         serving as technical experts to the Department of the
    Interior and the courts in the U.S. v. Michigan case and assisting in
    conflict resolution for Great Lakes fishery treaty issues in the ceded
    territories of the Great Lakes;
         leading the development of a protocol to conduct trout and
    salmon diet studies to help evaluate availability and changes to
    critical prey species;
         evaluating and constructing fish passage improvements in
    Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, and Lake Erie to support trust species
    restoration such as lake sturgeon and Atlantic salmon;
         developing fish population data bases to support multi-
    agency fisheries management and restoration efforts and maintaining a
    stocking data base for the Great Lakes Basin as used by all management
    entities in the United States and Canada;
         providing assistance to the multi-agency Yellow Perch Task
    Group on Lake Michigan, charged to assess the recent cause of the
    species' drastic population decline;
         leading a coaster brook trout and lake sturgeon
    restoration effort, including habitat improvement projects;
         surveying for and controlling invasive species in the
    Great Lakes Basin, including ruffe, round gobi, and zebra mussel;
         maintaining an effective sea lamprey control program in
    the Great Lakes and preserving inroads made in the restoration of lake
    trout; and
         restoring 11,000 acres of wetlands in the Great Lakes
    Basin, including Metzger Marsh in Ohio, a premier waterfowl area as
    well as an important spawning and nursery area for Lake Erie walleye
    and the imperiled lake sturgeon.
                               comments on s. 659
        Reauthorizing the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act
    represents a move from study to action. Based on the results of the
    Study, the bill directs the Service to request submission of fish and
    wildlife restoration proposals from State Directors and Tribes, in
    cooperation with other interested parties. The Great Lakes Fish and
    Wildlife Restoration Proposal Review Committee, made up of
    representatives with management authority in the basin, will then
    review submitted proposals and recommend priorities for implementation
    to the Service. Operating under the auspices of the Council of Lake
    Committees, the Review Committee will take full advantage of an
    established structure that currently helps manage the Great Lakes.
    Accepted proposals are 25 percent cost shared by non-Federal partners.
        The process of identifying, reviewing, and implementing proposals,
    as outlined in section 6(b) of the bill, continues the partnerships
    initiated under the original Act and provides a direct pathway from
    problem identification to solution. States, Tribes, and the Service
    working together, who are often in the best position to recognize
    problems and effect on-the-ground solutions, will receive much needed
    support to implement study recommendations. The Administration,
    however, seeks a technical amendment to this section by inserting ``,
    under existing authorities,'' on page 8, line 11, after ``Commission.''
    This would clarify that the Army Corps of Engineers would continue to
    use its existing authority to work with the Great Lakes Fishery
    Commission.
        The Service supports passage of the bill to reinforce Congress'
    commitment to implementing the Study recommendations and to enable
    possible increases in the Service's budget request in the future for
    fisheries restoration efforts in the Great Lakes.
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Administration supports S. 659 and
    believes that it will significantly contribute to the restoration of
    one of our Nation's most important ecosystems, and in particular, the
    fish and wildlife resources on which the region depends. Progress made
    to date under the Act represents the combined efforts of Great Lakes
    Basin partners, and S. 659 continues this tradition by providing a
    necessary and timely shift from investigation of needs to on-the-ground
    action.
    s. 2244, the national wildlife refuge system volunteer and partnership
                                enhancement act
        The next bill on the committee's agenda is S. 2244, the National
    Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Partnership Enhancement Act. We
    would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the personal interest you
    have taken in drafting legislation on this issue. I know Director Clark
    has personally conveyed this to you during refuge events in Rhode
    Island, and she regrets being unable to be here today.
        The Administration supports enactment of S. 2244, the National
    Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Partnership Enhancement Act.
    However, we do have an amendment to suggest.
        S. 2244 builds on the recently enacted National Wildlife Refuge
    System Improvement Act of 1997. As you know, the National Wildlife
    Refuge System Improvement Act strengthens the legal underpinnings of
    the System and emphasizes public participation in the operation of the
    System. The Volunteer bill before the committee today increases that
    emphasis on public participation and provides direction for the
    System's volunteers and its partnership organizations.
        Opportunities for the use of volunteers are currently available,
    not only on our National Wildlife Refuges, but on our national fish
    hatcheries, and in our law enforcement and ecological services field
    stations, and our regional offices. The Service is authorized to have a
    volunteer program by the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended by
    the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978, which states, in part,
    ``The Secretary of the Interior may recruit, train, and accept the
    services of individuals without compensation as volunteers for, or in
    aid of a program conducted by the Secretary through the United States
    Fish and Wildlife Service.'' This Act further states that incidental
    expenses such as transportation, uniforms, lodging, and subsistence of
    such volunteers are authorized. The Fiscal Year 1992 Interior
    Appropriations Act also authorized the Service to use appropriated
    funds to award and recognize volunteers.
        Despite recent increases in Refuge System funding sought by the
    Administration and provided by the Congress, the shortfall in operating
    and maintenance funds for the National Wildlife Refuge System presents
    a major challenge to our ability to carry out the Refuge System's
    unique conservation mission. Reliance on volunteers and private
    donations can play an important role in addressing these needs, but we
    must recognize that this is only a partial answer.
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's volunteers play a vital role
    in helping to fulfill our mission of conserving, protecting and
    enhancing America's fish and wildlife and their habitats. Public
    interest in participating in Service programs and visiting our
    facilities continues to exceed our staff capacity and funding, and it
    is expected to do so in the future. Volunteers provide essential
    services that the Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the resources
    or staff to provide. The number of our volunteers has increased from
    4,251 in 1982 to 25,840 volunteers in 1996. Volunteer hours also have
    increased, from 128,440 hours in 1982 to over one million hours in
    1996. Our volunteers work at a variety of tasks ranging from
    construction and repair projects, to orienting and educating visitors,
    to assisting with fish and wildlife surveys and habitat improvement
    projects.
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service volunteers include unaffiliated
    individuals, boy scouts, girl scouts, members of the American
    Association of Retired Persons, local Friends of the individual refuge
    groups, local Audubon chapters, and school groups, to name a few. The
    Service also uses volunteers from organizations such as the Student
    Conservation Association.
        Several examples of volunteer efforts include:
         Edwin B. Forsythe NWR volunteers assisted in piping plover
    nest surveys and population monitoring. Due to staff cutbacks the
    refuge was unable to continue its weekly waterbird surveys. The
    refuge's volunteers stepped in and the weekly surveys were done.
         At Ash Meadows NWR two volunteers removed 240 inactive
    utility poles during April and May. They donated 504 hours and saved
    the Service $100,000.
         At Bitter Lake NWR the Roswell Job Corps constructed a
    handicapped-accessible Watchable Wildlife overlook.
         At Kenai Fisheries Resources Office volunteers assisted in
    a baseline survey to determine the distribution and abundance of
    northern pike in the Moose River watershed.
         And, at Okefenokee NWR in Georgia 12 trailer pads with
    hookups were added. These volunteers were involved in lawn and sign
    maintenance, plumbing, staffing the Visitor Center, leading bird walks,
    painting, wildlife surveys, and redecking the boardwalks.
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service applauds you, Mr. Chairman, and
    members of your committee for initiating this bill on volunteers. We
    greatly appreciate having the opportunity to ``brag'' about the
    Service's volunteer program and all the good things our volunteers are
    helping us to accomplish.
        S. 2244 will further encourage the use of volunteers to assist the
    Service in the management of our National Wildlife Refuges; facilitate
    partnerships between the Service and non-Federal entities to promote
    public awareness of the resources of the Refuge System and public
    participation in the conservation of those resources; and encourage
    donations and other contributions by persons and organizations to
    individual refuges and the Refuge System.
        We are particularly pleased that the bill authorizes support of
    community partnerships that promote the mission of the National
    Wildlife Refuge System. These are 501(c)(3) nonprofit groups organized
    by local citizens to support their local National Wildlife Refuge
    through grassroots volunteer efforts, fund-raising, outreach, and
    education. The clear statement of legislative direction found in S.
    2244 should boost this increasingly popular form of public/private
    interaction. These partnerships with outside organizations and
    individuals are increasingly important elements of our ability to carry
    out conservation, recreation, and education programs. The Volunteer
    bill could add considerably to our abilities to interact with the
    private sector in accomplishing the Refuge System mission.
        The bill also affirms our authority for cost share projects, which
    to date have been authorized in annual appropriation bills. The concept
    of matching funds is very effective in stimulating the donation of
    funds or in-kind services to achieve the goal of improving a refuge. A
    refuge manager with a project initiative will first evaluate their own
    field station's budget to determine if funding is available. If
    sufficient funding is not available at the field station, funding
    support from the regional or national level would then be explored.
    Permanent authorization and direction could help this program grow
    beyond its current $3.3 million size, thus leveraging available funds.
        S. 2244 would also establish a pilot program to test the effects of
    locating a volunteer coordinator at between two and 20 selected
    refuges. This 3-year program would enable us to determine what impact
    this would have on our ability to recruit and utilize volunteers, work
    with partner organizations and other non-Federal entities interested in
    cooperative projects on refuges, and promote cost-sharing projects.
    After 3 years, we would provide a report and recommendations to the
    Congress as to the future direction of this effort. We are looking
    forward to implementing this provision, and believe that the investment
    involved will pay considerable dividends.
        The bill further enhances our volunteer capability by authorizing
    the establishment of a Senior Volunteer Corps, authorizes us to provide
    for incidental expenses for the Senior volunteers beyond those
    otherwise provided to volunteers and to provide for expenses of local
    volunteers.
        The Administration endorses utilizing the talents of Senior
    volunteers to benefit our National Wildlife Refuges, but believes that
    establishment of a new Senior Volunteer Corps for the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, as provided in section 4(c), is unnecessary. The goal of
    increased utilization of senior citizens in refuge volunteer programs
    can most effectively be achieved through an interagency agreement
    between the Service and the Corporation for National Service's National
    Senior Service Corps (NSSC). The programs and infrastructure of the
    NSSC have been in existence for over 30 years, and can maximize senior
    volunteer involvement at the lowest possible administrative cost. We
    accordingly recommend that the bill be amended to reflect this.
        The last major element of S. 2244 is direction on providing refuge
    educational programs. While the Service already engages in
    environmental education programs at many refuges, the bill calls for
    unified program guidance for this activity. This guidance, and the
    greater attention to refuge education programs that is likely to
    follow, should lead to both an expansion of our efforts and greater
    community involvement in those efforts. Both will be extremely
    beneficial for the refuges and for the communities in which the
    activities occur.
        We again thank you and the committee for the interest shown in the
    National Wildlife Refuge System and for this legislation on the use of
    volunteers. Its enactment should provide a major boost for refuge
    volunteer programs and the many benefits they bring to our National
    Wildlife Refuges.
                        s. 263, the bear protection act
        Finally, I'll address S. 263, the Bear Protection Act. S. 263 is
    intended to prevent American Black Bear populations from being harmed
    as a result of the demand for bear viscera which is used in certain
    Asian medicinal products. The legislation would prohibit the import
    into or export from the United States of bear viscera, or products that
    contain or claim to contain bear viscera, and it would prohibit the
    sale, barter, or possession of bear viscera for interstate commerce.
    The bill would require the Secretary to report to the Congress on the
    bear viscera trade, and require the Secretary of the Interior and the
    United States Trade Representative to discuss bear trade issues with
    the leading countries that import or export bear viscera. Finally, it
    would impose the same penalties and sanctions as those imposed under
    the Lacey Act.
        Although significant illegal trade in Asiatic species of bear
    exists primarily to supply the Asian medicinal market, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service does not have evidence to support the claim that bears
    in the United States are threatened by the demand for bear viscera.
    Existing authorities such as the Endangered Species Act, Lacey Act,
    Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Convention on International Trade
    in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) have been
    effective tools in addressing the illegal bear trade. With the
    exception of black bear populations in Florida and Louisiana, black
    bear populations in the United States and Canada generally are
    increasing, due in a large part to the effective wildlife management
    activities of the States. According to our records, there are over
    590,000 black bears in the United States and Canada.
        The Service currently monitors and investigates illegal commercial
    wildlife activities related to bear and bear parts under existing
    authorities. Our current controls have resulted in the detection of an
    average of 70 illegal shipments of bear and bear parts over the past 5
    years. During this time period, the Service has also been effective in
    conducting successful and productive investigations as demonstrated by
    the following statistics:
         In 1993, there were 42 criminal cases and 1 civil case,
    involving bear or bear parts. A total of $154,755 in fines and 1,930
    days of jail time was imposed.
         In 1994, there were 46 criminal cases involving bear or
    bear parts. A total of $25,485 in fines and 169 days of jail time was
    imposed.
         In 1995, there were 23 criminal cases involving bear or
    bear parts. A total of $21,547 in fines and 495 days of jail time was
    imposed.
         In 1996, there were 21 criminal cases involving bear or
    bear parts. A total of $12,534 in fines and 1,696 days of jail time was
    imposed.
         In addition, the number of imports/exports refused that
    contained bear or bear parts increased from 65 shipments in 1993 to 77
    shipments in 1996.
        The Service has significant concerns with language contained in the
    bill that would hinder the successful prosecution of cases brought
    under the Bear Protection Act. The Lacey Act is an umbrella statute
    used to provide additional protection to fish, wildlife, and plants
    that were taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of State,
    tribal, foreign, or U.S. law. Literally adopting portions of the Lacey
    Act into the Bear Protection Act creates technical legal concerns that
    should be addressed prior to the final passage of this legislation.
        One example of this problem can be found in the reference to the
    Lacey Act penalties and sanctions provisions. These provisions refer
    specifically to the requirement of a violation of an underlying
    predicate law. This implies that some other law would have to be
    violated in order to impose the Bear Protection Act. The Bear
    Protection Act, as currently drafted, is intended to be a stand-alone
    statute that is not dependent on a violation of an underlying predicate
    law. To remedy this problem, specific and clear provisions must be
    written into the Bear Protection Act that would eliminate this
    potential legal technicality. There are other references to the Lacey
    Act throughout the proposed legislation that create similar problems.
        Finally, the Service has concerns with the potential increase in
    responsibilities and impact on its human and financial resources. To
    date, the Service has successfully utilized undercover investigations
    and task force operations in its prior investigations and would
    anticipate that S. 263 would result in an increase in enforcement
    responsibilities for the Service without a corresponding increase in
    funding.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Service believes that bears in the
    United States have been adequately protected to date and that this
    legislation addresses an issue which has not been a major resource
    problem. We have certain concerns about other provisions. If the
    committee proceeds with S. 263, we would be available to assist staff
    in drafting technical corrections to address those concerns.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Ginette Hemley, Vice President for Species
                       Conservation, World Wildlife Fund
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear here today. I am Ginette Hemley, vice president
    for Species Conservation at World Wildlife Fund. WWF is the largest
    private conservation organization working internationally to protect
    wildlife and wildlife habitats. We currently support wildlife
    conservation efforts in more than 100 countries, including almost all
    tiger and rhino range nations.
        My testimony today will cover a wide range of proposed legislation.
    Regarding the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act, I will provide
    WWF's perspective on why this bill is vital to helping law enforcement
    agencies police the illegal trade in rhino and tiger products, one of
    the most urgent threats facing these critically endangered species. In
    addition, I will discuss why it is crucial to reauthorize the Rhino and
    Tiger Conservation Act as an important source of support for rhino and
    tiger conservation programs. I also will offer some recommendations on
    how the proposed Bear Protection Act might be strengthened to help the
    world's most threatened bear species, and suggest amendments that would
    improve the Fish and Wildlife Revenue Enhancement Act of 1998. Finally,
    I will explain why we endorse the proposed Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Act of 1998.
        The United States has long been a leader in international wildlife
    conservation. For more than 25 years, the Endangered Species Act has
    served as model legislation for countries worldwide struggling to
    protect imperiled species such as tigers and rhinos. By addressing the
    range of threats--from poaching to illegal trade to habitat loss--the
    ESA has served as a critical weapon in the global fight to stop
    species' decline. In recent years, the United States also has taken
    unprecedented action under other laws such as the Pelly Amendment to
    the Fisherman's Protective Act to encourage stronger endangered species
    protection measures in other countries. By imposing wildlife trade
    sanctions on Taiwan in 1994 for its failure to stop the illegal trade
    in tiger and rhino products, the United States stimulated much-needed
    conservation progress, not only in Taiwan but elsewhere in Asia as
    well. And, through programs administered by the Department of the
    Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USAID, the United States
    has provided critical on-the-ground support for efforts to protect
    dwindling populations of tigers, rhinos, elephants, and other
    threatened species.
              why we need the rhino and tiger product labeling act
        This committee is well aware of the crisis facing rhinos and tigers
    in the wild, and the staggering declines these species have
    experienced. Ninety-five percent of the world's wild tigers have
    disappeared since the turn of the century, with losses to poaching
    accelerating over the past decade. There are probably fewer than 6,000
    tigers remaining in the wild today. Similarly, more than 95 percent of
    Africa's black rhinos have been lost in just three decades. Today there
    are fewer than 2,500 of these animals in the wild. Asian rhinos face
    even longer odds--the Javan rhino, for instance, is down to fewer than
    70 animals in the wild today.
        We know all too well where the blame lies for these dramatic
    declines. In addition to having lost so much habitat to expanding human
    populations and uses, tigers and rhinos have been poached nearly out of
    existence for their highly valued body parts. Poaching represents the
    most immediate threat to the survival of these species, a problem to a
    large degree driven by the demand for bone, horn and other parts used
    in traditional Chinese medicines. In fact, according to international
    experts, from the mid-1980's to the mid-1990's, as many as one quarter
    of the world's tigers may have been killed to supply the international
    black market trade for their body parts, particularly bone. As
    economies and trade centers grew in East Asia including China, South
    Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, so did the commerce in tiger, rhino and
    other species used in traditional medicine, in spite of a 20-year-old
    ban under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
    of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The direct link between international
    trade and the decline of tiger and rhino populations has become
    increasingly clear as investigations into the government trade records
    and confiscations of consumer countries such as South Korea and China
    revealed a significant volume of tiger bone and rhinoceros horn flowing
    across their borders in the early part of this decade.
        Many people do not realize that, in addition to East Asia, the
    United States is also a significant market for packaged traditional
    Chinese medicines containing or claiming to contain tiger bone, rhino
    horn, and other protected species. In January, World Wildlife Fund
    released a report produced by its wildlife trade monitoring program,
    TRAFFIC, highlighting an alarming trend. There are more medicinal
    products advertised as containing tiger bone in North American markets
    today than there were 5 years ago. According to TRAFFIC's
    investigation, which covered seven major cities in the United States
    and Canada (Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Seattle,
    Toronto and Vancouver), over 40 percent of the nearly 110 traditional
    medicine shops surveyed had tiger and rhino medicines for sale.
    Investigators found 31 different types of tiger and rhino medicines
    available, the vast majority made in China. Mr. Chairman, I would like
    to submit a copy of the TRAFFIC report for the record.
        Why, in spite of the Endangered Species Act, CITES, the Lacey Act
    and other laws, are these products readily available for sale on the
    U.S. market? We see three primary reasons: (1) inadequate enforcement
    of existing import prohibitions established under the Endangered
    Species and Lacey Acts; (2) lack of domestic legislation prohibiting
    the sale of products labeled as containing endangered species; and (3)
    lack of public awareness about the illegality of such products and the
    threats to tigers and rhinos in the wild.
        Inadequacies in laws regulating domestic tiger and rhino trade have
    attracted increasing scrutiny in recent years. At each of the past two
    Conferences of the Parties to CITES in 1994 and 1997, resolutions were
    passed calling on member governments to strengthen legislation
    controlling trade in tiger and rhino parts, including the prohibition
    of internal trade in these species and their derivatives as well as in
    products labeled as containing their parts or derivatives. Fortunately,
    China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore have strengthened their laws to
    comply with the CITES recommendations, which has had an important and
    measurable effect on dampening the illegal trade. Unfortunately, the
    United States has still to act.
        The United States has allowed a fundamental weakness in current
    trade controls to remain, which makes it relatively risk-free to sell
    rhino and tiger medicinal products in this country. Although import of
    and interstate commerce in rhino and tiger medicines are prohibited
    under both the Endangered Species and Lacey Acts, these laws place the
    burden of proof that a product actually contains the prohibited
    wildlife ingredients upon the government. Forensic analysis of these
    products is costly, time-consuming, and often inconclusive, presenting
    a powerful disincentive to prosecuting suspected violations. The Rhino
    and Tiger Product Labeling Act would allow enforcement agencies to take
    immediate action against anyone caught importing, exporting or selling
    products claiming to contain tiger or rhino.
        Controversy continues over whether products in the U.S. marketplace
    do in fact contain endangered wildlife ingredients. Their low cost and
    widespread availability would seem to defy the laws of supply and
    demand. However, if these products contain even trace amounts of tiger
    bone or rhino horn--and investigations into the factories in China
    where these products are made suggest that this could well be the
    case--the sheer volume of sales of these products represents an
    imminent threat to the survival of these critically endangered species.
    Furthermore, even if they contain no rhino or tiger derivatives, the
    promotion of these products in the marketplace stimulates the demand
    for real rhino and tiger medicines, and makes consumers less receptive
    to medicinal substitutes made from non-endangered species.
        To address this problem, Congress should pass legislation similar
    to H.R. 2807, the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act and make it
    illegal to sell any product that purports to contain rhino or tiger.
    Next, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should implement a
    coordinated, national strategy for interdiction of these illegal
    products. The January 1998 TRAFFIC study helps pinpoint where attention
    is most needed. Notably, Los Angeles, the one city where the Federal
    Government has made a concerted effort to enforce the import laws and
    increase public awareness, ranked as the ``cleanest'' city for
    endangered species medicines in the study. Finally, the conservation
    community and Federal and State agencies responsible for wildlife trade
    control must work closely with traditional Chinese medicine and Asian
    communities to raise awareness about both the trade problem and the
    plight of the endangered species involved. be must work together to
    find and advocate culturally appropriate substitute medicines.
        Since the beginning of this year, WWF has been working with the
    American College of Traditional Chinese Medicine to build public
    support for tiger conservation within the Chinese community in San
    Francisco and reduce demand for tiger and other endangered species
    medicines. In June, we held a first-of-its-kind conference, attended by
    150 participants and bringing together tiger experts, conservationists,
    wildlife trade specialists, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)
    practitioners and retailers, TCM educators and students, Chinese
    language school teachers, and Chinese American community leaders, to
    formulate a collaborative strategy to conserve tigers and reduce demand
    for tiger bone medicines. The conference was productive even beyond
    expectations and laid the groundwork for meaningful grassroots tiger
    conservation actions to come. Representatives from the TCM retail
    association declared their support of the Rhino and Tiger Product
    Labeling Act and hope to see it enacted without delay.
        Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives passed the Rhino and
    Tiger Product Labeling Act, H.R. 2807, in April. We urge you, as a
    matter of priority, to pass legislation similar to H.R. 2807. Every
    reasonable measure must be undertaken to save the world's remaining
    rhinos and tigers, and this legislation is a critical part of our
    international conservation efforts.
       the rhinoceros and tiger conservation reauthorization act of 1998
        We have all heard the grim statistics about the dire status of
    tigers and rhinos. Equally deserving of recognition, though, is the
    heartening progress made in recent years toward halting and reversing
    these trends. In 1985, a survey of tigers in the Russian Far East
    reached the alarming conclusion that only about 250 of these animals,
    the world's largest tigers, remained. In the chaotic aftermath of the
    breakup of the former Soviet Union in the early 1990's, poaching
    escalated further. Russian and international conservationists and many
    governments, including the United States, quickly joined forces--and
    contributed financial resources--to shore up protection for tigers. A
    1996 survey counted as many as 475 tigers in Siberia--strong evidence
    that the population appears to be rebuilding.
        There are rhino success stories as well. In Royal Chitwan National
    Park in Nepal, a population of greater one-horned rhinos that numbered
    about one thousand at the beginning of the century had shrunk to a
    seemingly doomed 60 individuals only two decades ago. Today, this
    population is estimated at a robust 450 rhinos, thanks to intensive
    conservation efforts--made possible by steady funding--that have staved
    off human encroachment and reduced poaching incidents to near zero. In
    Africa, black rhinos also have benefited from vigorous protection
    measures that have helped many populations stabilize during this decade
    after the poaching carnage of the 1970's and 1980's.
        The message here is simple: the situation for tigers and rhinos is
    critical, but it is by no means hopeless. When financial support is
    available and reliable, the improvements can be rapid and dramatic. We
    know what needs to be done. We have better data on these species and
    their habitat, closer international coordination among stakeholders,
    and a more strategic vision than ever before. An example of research
    that pinpoints specific places and projects for tiger protection is A
    Framework for Identifying High Priority Areas and Actions for the
    Conservation of Tigers in the Wild, a joint publication of World
    Wildlife Fund, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and the National Fish
    and Wildlife Foundation's Save the Tiger Fund. This report delineates
    25 remaining habitat areas where tigers stand the best chance of long-
    term survival. By concentrating on these 25 areas, we can maintain
    representation of tigers across their full range. The report also
    analyzes the viability of existing tiger reserves, pointing out that
    many are too small to sustain tiger populations, and that many tigers
    live outside reserve boundaries. Ultimately, each critical tiger
    habitat area should contain a network of tiger reserves surrounded by
    buffer zones where limited human activities are permitted and linked by
    corridors that allow tigers to disperse among once-isolated islands of
    habitat. Securing such protected area networks--and the tiger's
    future--hinges upon securing long-term investment from sources like the
    Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund.
        Working with rhino experts and international partners such as the
    World Conservation Union (IUCN), WWF has developed a comparable
    recovery strategy for African rhinos, and will complete a strategy for
    Asian rhinos later this year. WWF's African Rhino Action Plan
    identifies key rhino populations--those with the greatest probability
    of long-term survival and sets out a blueprint for achieving stable
    rhino populations. Priority projects such as expanding rhino reserves
    and intensifying anti-poaching efforts require a major commitment of
    resources at a time when many African countries have scaled back
    wildlife conservation budgets in response to other pressing development
    needs. And wildlife management agencies in many Asian countries are no
    better off financially than those in Africa. Here, too, funding from
    the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund is a critical complement to the
    support already coming for rhino conservation from other private and
    public sources.
        As with the African Elephant Conservation Fund, widely recognized
    as a success, the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund represents a long-
    term commitment by the United States government to these threatened
    species. While the United States supported 31 important projects in
    fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, many remained unfunded and the
    number of proposals to the Fish and Wildlife Service continues to
    rapidly increase. The fund, which must be shared among tigers in 14
    countries and five species of Asian and African rhinos, is spread far
    too thin. Although the Rhino. and Tiger Conservation Act authorizes up
    to $10 million a year, only $400,000 per year has been appropriated. We
    understand that the Senate Appropriations Committee did not approve
    additional funding in the fiscal year 1999 Interior Appropriations bill
    (or the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund. We strongly urge the members
    of this committee to support an increased appropriation for this fund,
    to at least $1 million for fiscal year 1999. This additional investment
    will make a significant and measurable difference for these imperiled
    species.
                            the bear protection act
        World Wildlife Fund greatly appreciates the interest of Senator
    McConnell and the other cosponsors of S. 263, the Bear Protection Act,
    in improving the conservation status of the world's eight bear species.
    We would like to offer the following information and recommendations
    with the aim of ensuring that any legislation passed by Congress
    effectively contributes to global bear conservation.
        There is little question that most populations of the world's eight
    bear species have experienced significant declines during this century,
    particularly in parts of Europe and Asia. Habitat loss has been the
    major reason for this decline, although overhunting has also been a
    factor in some cases, especially in Asia. In recent years, the
    commercial trade of bear body parts, particularly gall bladders, for
    use in traditional Asian medicines has been implicated as the driving
    force behind the illegal hunting of some bear populations. Although
    substantive evidence linking widespread poaching to such trade is
    scant, analyses by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, TRAFFIC, and
    other organizations have documented the existence of illicit commercial
    markets and smuggling rings for bear body parts. While the scope and
    impact of this trade on bear populations is not known, recent analyses
    suggest that the consumer market for wild bear body parts may have
    declined in recent years. However, the relatively high value of wild
    bear parts, particularly viscera, on the international market warrants
    that continued action be taken to minimize the threat or potential
    threat of illegal trade.
        Fortunately, bear populations in North America, particularly those
    of the American black bear, remain among the healthiest in the world.
    In spite of occasional documented reports of illegal trade in black
    bear body parts associated with the traditional Asian medicine trade,
    State wildlife management authorities indicate black bear populations
    are generally stable or increasing throughout the country, in some
    cases dramatically. With the exception of the Louisiana and possibly
    Florida subspecies, the American black bear is not considered
    threatened or endangered. Further, there is no indication that these
    populations have been negatively impacted by poaching for commercial
    trade. While populations of the grizzly bear and polar bear receive
    Federal protection because of their more precarious status, there is
    very little evidence of trade in their body parts for Asian medicinal
    markets and a link between illegal hunting and commercial medicinal
    trade.
        Although specific information on the scope and impact of trade is
    lacking, the biannual Conference of the Parties to CITES in June 1997
    recognized the potential threat of illicit trade in bear parts and
    adopted a resolution, cosponsored by the United States, urging the 143
    CITES member nations to strengthen their enforcement of bear trade
    controls, eliminate illegal markets for bear products, engage all
    stakeholders to help reduce illegal trade, and otherwise improve the
    implementation of CITES bear trade controls. CITES stopped short of
    advocating a complete ban on the trade of parts from Appendix II-listed
    bears, but singled out the Asian bear species--most of which are listed
    on Appendix I--as in particular need of conservation action and
    funding.
        The American black bear is listed on Appendix II of CITES due to
    similarity of appearance to other listed bear species, and conservation
    and management of the black bear remains largely in the hands of the
    States and Canadian provinces. Most States already prohibit the
    commercial trade in bear parts, but seven (Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire,
    New York, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming) apparently still allow
    commercial trade of products from bears taken within their borders.
    Several other States do not explicitly prohibit the commercial trade in
    parts from bears taken within the borders of other jurisdictions.
    Although there is concern that inconsistent State laws may facilitate
    illegal trade and laundering of bear parts, there is little evidence to
    indicate that this is a major or widespread problem.
        Given the above information, WWF urges the committee to consider
    the following recommendations in its deliberations over the proposed
    Bear Protection Act:
        Findings. The proposed legislation does not reflect the most up-to-
    date information on the conservation and legal status of the world's
    eight bear species, current knowledge of the illegal bear trade, and
    recent actions undertaken by CITES to address the problem. We recommend
    that such information be referenced in the Findings section of the bill
    and be elaborated fully in the legislative report.
        Review of the Illegal Bear Trade in the United States. Most
    information on the illegal trade of bear parts in the United States is
    based on anecdotal information and there is a clear need to better
    define the issue. To do this effectively, we believe it is necessary to
    undertake a broad review of the trade, to accurately assess problem
    areas so that enforcement resources can be appropriately applied. We
    recommend that the proposed Bear Protection Act direct the Department
    of the Interior to conduct, in cooperation with State fish and wildlife
    agencies, an assessment of the illegal trade in bear viscera in the
    United States and its impact on wild bear populations in North America
    and elsewhere, and examine the links of such activities to the Asian
    medicinal trade. Such data are essential to responsible trade control
    and enforcement. The legislation also should authorize the funding
    needed to undertake such an assessment.
        Prohibitions. While we recognize that the Federal Government has an
    appropriate role to play in controlling the import and export of
    wildlife products, particularly for CITES or federally listed species,
    we question the need at this point for broad prohibitions on interstate
    trade and commercialization of bear products, pending the outcome of a
    review as outlined above. As noted previously, most States with bear
    populations have already enacted legislation to control bear trade. We
    urge Congress to consider providing the Interior Department with the
    authority to impose broader trade restrictions, but only if further
    analysis indicates that such action is warranted. A similar approach is
    embodied in the African Elephant Conservation Act, and was effectively
    employed by the United States to address the illegal ivory trade in the
    late 1980's.
        Funding for Enforcement. Strengthened enforcement is essential to
    achieving the long-term aims of the proposed Bear Protection Act, yet
    the draft legislation does not authorize any funding to ensure that new
    trade control measures can be adequately implemented. Without
    additional funding, this legislation will provide little new protection
    for the world's bears. Should the Bear Protection Act go forward, we
    urge that moneys for such activities be authorized as a matter of
    priority.
        Funding for Conservation of Endangered Bear Species. The aim of the
    Bear Protection Act is to ensure the long-term viability of the world's
    eight bear species and to perpetuate healthy populations of American
    bears. Yet the proposed legislation does nothing to directly aid
    conservation of the world's most endangered bear species. We strongly
    urge the Bear Protection Act to include a provision authorizing
    specific funding to support priority conservation activities for
    endangered bears. Such action has been recommended by CITES, and is
    essential to achieving long-term viability of bear populations
    globally. In moving to enact stricter trade measures, we believe that
    the United States also has a responsibility to directly assist other
    countries in the conservation of the most endangered bear species.
             the fish and wildlife revenue enhancement act of 1998
        World Wildlife Fund is well aware that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service has accumulated an enormous volume of forfeited and abandoned
    wildlife products, despite measures to use and distribute such products
    in educational and scientific programs. We appreciate that the costs of
    shipping, storing and distributing these products can be substantial,
    and that the funding required for such activities can compete with
    funding needed for higher priority activities such as wildlife
    enforcement and education.
        WWF strongly supports and encourages the Service to continue, and
    where possible expand, educational initiatives that utilize forfeited
    and abandoned wildlife products, such as the Suitcase for Survival and
    Cargo for Conservation programs, with which WWF and the American Zoo
    and Aquarium Association have collaborated. WWF sees such educational
    efforts as the best and most appropriate means to dispose of forfeited
    and abandoned wildlife goods. It is critically important to educate
    present and future wildlife consumers about the detrimental effects of
    illegal wildlife trade on endangered and threatened species, and using
    forfeited wildlife products to deliver this message can be a powerful
    tool.
        Two points remain clear, however. First, these important programs
    operate successfully only at a substantial cost to the Service, and
    second, even with such programs, a large surplus of forfeited and
    abandoned wildlife goods will, unfortunately, likely remain.
        WWF sees the potential benefits to the Fish and Wildlife Service of
    selling certain forfeited and abandoned wildlife products made from
    non-endangered species, if the proceeds of such sale can be directed
    back into educational, scientific, and other conservation-related
    activities. At the same time, we recognize that selling certain
    forfeited and abandoned wildlife could potentially stimulate a market
    for such wildlife, which is not in the interest of the Service nor the
    species concerned. We therefore recommend that Congress direct the
    Service to use caution and prudence when proceeding with such sales,
    including evaluating affected species listed under Appendix II of CITES
    and species which may be legally protected in countries which are part
    of the natural range.
        I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that WWF strongly opposes the
    sale under any circumstances of any wildlife or wildlife products made
    from species listed under the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or Appendix I of the
    CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
    Fauna and Flora). If such sale is not in violation of the strict letter
    of these laws and agreements, it would clearly undermine their intent,
    and potentially threaten the survival of the affected species.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, WWF is concerned that, in its current form,
    the Fish and Wildlife Revenue Enhancement Act of 1998 allows the use of
    revenue to pay only for conducting wildlife sales and the costs
    associated with the storage and shipment of forfeited and abandoned
    wildlife. While we appreciate that this is the main intent of the
    legislation, we suggest that a provision be made for using any excess
    revenues above and beyond the costs of sale, storage, and shipping for
    other related conservation and educational activities.
        WWF therefore recommends that the committee consider the following
    in its deliberations over the proposed legislation:
         We recommend that the Fish and Wildlife Service develop a
    formal system of evaluating options and setting priorities for disposal
    of forfeited and abandoned wildlife that takes into account possible
    uses for educational, scientific, and Native American religious
    purposes, and encourages such uses as the preferred means of disposal;
    and which also evaluates on a tax-specific basis the conservation and
    legal status of affected species in their country of origin. We believe
    that special scrutiny should be used for species that would generally
    be allowed legally into U.S. commerce, but which might be subject to
    certain protections or conservation measures in parts of their range.
         We suggest that language be added that clearly specifies
    that the sale of species listed on CITES Appendix I, the Endangered
    Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act or Migratory Bird Treaty
    Act will not be allowed.
         We recommend that language be added that would allow for
    the use of any excess revenues generated by an auction for related
    conservation or educational purposes, perhaps through the creation of a
    special fund.
            the neotropical migratory bird conservation act of 1998
        Populations of neotropical songbirds such as wood warblers, vireos,
    and orioles continue to decline across North America. Some 90 species
    are listed endangered or threatened in the United States, while another
    124 species are considered to be of high conservation concern. The
    primary reasons for these declines are habitat loss and degradation.
    Since neotropical migrants range across numerous international borders,
    successful conservation depends on protecting them at both ends of the
    migratory routes--in their wintering grounds in the tropics and
    subtropics and in their northern breeding habitat areas--as well as at
    critical stopover sites along the way.
        The proposed Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act would
    provide much-needed support for projects aimed at protecting critical
    habitat for declining migratory bird species, in an innovative way that
    promotes conservation partnerships and cost-sharing through joint
    Federal and non-Federal support mechanisms. Projects funded under the
    new law would be aimed at enhancing the conservation of migratory bird
    species in Latin America and the Caribbean, with a special emphasis on
    reversing habitat loss and degradation. Projects also would include
    mechanisms to ensure adequate local public participation and
    consultation with appropriate local government officials and entities.
    World Wildlife Fund believes these approaches are essential for
    effective conservation of threatened migratory bird species in both the
    southern and northern hemispheres.
        World Wildlife Fund supports passage of the Neotropical Migratory
    Bird Conservation Act as an important new tool for establishing
    protection regimes for crucial habitat areas for migratory bird species
    in Latin America and the Caribbean. At the same time, we would note
    that, while loss of wintering habitat in tropical wintering grounds and
    destruction of feeding and resting sites along migration routes are
    contributing significantly to the decline of many species, recent
    studies suggest that a major contributor to the decline of neotropical
    migrants is the scarcity of habitat where bird populations can breed in
    sufficient numbers to maintain populations. Over the vast landscapes of
    eastern North America, for example, only a few sites are large enough
    to allow bird populations to maintain positive rates of reproduction.
    The vast majority of land in the region consists of forest blocks that
    are so small, fragmented, or isolated that most bird nests suffer very
    high egg and nestling mortality from small predators, or from intensive
    parasitism by cowbirds. The highest mortality rates are associated with
    forest edges; only in larger forest blocks is there sufficient core
    habitat buffered from high predation and parasitism.
        Maintaining larger blocks of intact forest as ``source pools'' for
    migratory species thus increasingly appears to be an important strategy
    for conserving migratory songbirds across North America. Key forest
    blocks acting as significant breeding areas for migratory songbirds
    need to be identified, the threats to them analyzed, and areas with the
    potential for habitat restoration and regeneration defined. World
    Wildlife Fund urges the committee to consider this in deliberations
    over the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and to allow for
    habitat protection and research efforts in North America to be
    supported as part of any new legislative initiative.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today.
    Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to answer any questions.
                                   __________

                              While Supplies Last

       The Sale of Tiger and Other Endangered Species Medicines in North
                               America 1996-1997
                           edited by andrea l. gaski
    Executive Summary
        Rhinos and tigers are among the most critically endangered large
    mammals in the world and are the focus of extensive global conservation
    efforts aimed at halting their decline. Consumer demand for and trade
    in the parts and derivatives of these species supply luxury markets as
    well as markets for cultural and medicinal needs. One of the most
    complex and far-reaching of these demands is for use in traditional
    medicines. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) uses these animal
    derivatives to prepare medications in two forms--as individually
    prepared prescriptions and as over-the-counter packaged medicines. Most
    of the latter medicines are manufactured in China and are sold in
    markets worldwide.
        While the illegal trade in raw products of endangered species is an
    undisputed problem, conservationists have long debated the degree of
    threat posed by the trade in prepared medicines containing or claiming
    to contain protected and regulated species. But most conservationists
    believe that whether or not the medicines always contain these species,
    the advertising and promotion of such ingredients sustains consumer
    demand for them and perpetuates the conservation problem. As such,
    these products should be treated as if they contain these derivatives
    and their trade should be prohibited or regulated as dictated by the
    Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
    and Flora (CITES).
        Commercial trade of raw rhino horn and tiger or leopard bone and
    their derivative products is prohibited by CITES (all species are
    listed in Appendix I of the Convention), as well as by domestic
    legislation in several countries, including Canada, the United States,
    and China. In Canada and the United States, the burden of proving that
    those products actually contain the species listed rests with the
    government. Unfortunately, although seizures occur at the port of entry
    when products are occasionally intercepted, few, if any, prosecutions
    of those dealing in these medicines have taken place because current
    forensic techniques are as yet unable to detect many of the derivatives
    in these products. The offer for sale of these otherwise illegally
    imported medicines continues because of lack of a strong law
    enforcement deterrent and, presumably, lack of consumer awareness about
    the problem. Conservationists believe that the ongoing availability of
    these products in North America constitutes a violation of CITES and of
    domestic legislation, is a threat to the species concerned, and should
    be stopped by wildlife law enforcement agencies.
        TRAFFIC North America investigated the display and sale of
    endangered species products in two Canadian and five U.S. cities
    beginning in late 1996 through fall of 1997. TRAFFIC focused on North
    American Chinatowns because of the concentration of shops that
    presumably sell those products and because these neighborhoods are
    visited by Chinese and non-Chinese alike. The TRAFFIC investigator
    posed as a customer but did not make any attempt to deceive any shop
    owner into offering to sell a product that might not normally have been
    readily available in the shop.
        TRAFFIC gathered information on offers to sell medicines that
    contained or claimed to contain legally protected species--rhino
    (Rhinocerotidae spp.), tiger (Panthera tigris) and leopard (P. pardus).
    TRAFFIC also collected information on medicines that contained or
    claimed to contain legally regulated species--musk deer (Moschus spp.)
    and bear (Ursidae spp.). Legally protected species are those that
    cannot be commercially imported into Canada and the United States for
    commercial purposes under CITES provisions. Legally regulated species
    are those that are governed by CITES and that generally may be imported
    with a permit from the country of origin or reexport.
        Of the 110 shops surveyed, 50 percent offered for sale one or more
    protected species medicines or medicines or products that contained or
    claimed to contain the target protected species--tiger, rhinos, and
    leopard. The medicines most commonly found offered for sale were those
    that contained or claimed to contain tiger parts and products, although
    musk deer products were almost as common. The least commonly found
    medicines were those containing or claiming to contain bear parts and
    products. At least 31 different types of rhino-or tiger-containing
    medicines, produced by between 29 and 34 different manufacturers, were
    found offered for sale during the survey. The cities with the greatest
    proportion of shops that offered for sale medicines containing
    protected species which were presumably illegally imported are, in
    descending order: New York, Vancouver, Seattle, Toronto, Atlanta, San
    Francisco, and Los Angeles.
        TRAFFIC concludes that:
          Protected species medicines are readily available in
    North America
          Protected species medicines are available because of
    legal inadequacies
          North America appears to be significant market for these
    medicines
          Illegal stockpiles of these medicines may exist
          Public outreach must be initiated to eliminate these
    markets

        TRAFFIC recommends that:
          Regional law enforcement must be increased
          Legislation to control internal trade needs to be
    strengthened
          Stockpiles and manufacturers should be identified and
    inventoried
          Collaborative North American public outreach efforts are
    required
          U.S. governmental funding for tiger and rhino
    conservation and trade control efforts should be increased

        In the 12-year Chinese calendar, 1998 is the Year of the Tiger. It
    is also the 25th anniversary of CITES--the Convention on International
    Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The coincidence of
    these two auspicious events, one in Chinese culture and one in wildlife
    conservation, provides an appropriate backdrop to the release of this
    report, which is part of a two-part research project on the market for
    and use of rhinoceros and tiger products in North America. The project
    was designed to assist the CITES parties, North American governments,
    and other interested organizations and agencies in reducing and
    eventually eliminating the demand for wild tiger and rhino parts in
    North America.
        Rhinos and tigers are among the most critically endangered large
    mammals in the world and are the focus of extensive global conservation
    efforts to halt their decline. Although habitat loss was and is the
    primary cause of the decline of these animals, international illegal
    trade of their parts and derivatives is also of intense
    concern.Consumer demand for and trade in these parts and derivatives
    supply luxury markets as well as markets for cultural and medicinal
    needs. One of the most complex and far-reaching of these demands is for
    use in traditional medicines. Hundreds of millions of people throughout
    the world depend on traditional medicine systems that, in turn, depend
    on wild animal and plant derivatives as ingredients of medicines and
    tonics. Conservationists believe that uncontrolled demand--particularly
    of endangered species, such as tigers and rhinos--is a threat to those
    species' survival. Examples of the species used in traditional medicine
    along with the disorders and illnesses they are intended to treat
    appear in Table 1.
        Spearheading the international initiative to halt the trade of
    tiger and rhinoceros parts, the parties to CITES passed two resolutions
    in 1994 (see appendices 1 and 2) that highlighted ongoing problems with
    illegal trade of these species. The resolutions requested that the
    CITES parties and other relevant organizations escalate their law
    enforcement efforts to halt persistent poaching and illegal trade to
    eliminate demand for rhino and tiger products, and to consolidate
    stockpiles of tiger parts and derivatives. In 1997, the CITES parties
    strengthened the tiger resolution, asking the CITES Standing Committee
    to periodically provide annual updates on country-by-country progress
    in law enforcement efforts and legislative amendments to stop the
    illegal trade. During discussions before the passage of this amended
    resolution in 1997, many parties affected by the export ban strongly
    expressed their concern that some countries, particularly developed
    countries, were not making a sufficient effort to eliminate the trade
    in products labeled as containing tiger parts or derivatives.
        At the same time, CITES parties passed another resolution (see
    appendix 3) recommending that parties increase collaborative public
    awareness efforts within the traditional medicine industry and medical
    systems. The parties determined that these efforts needed to focus on
    conservation of over exploited wild species, such as rhinos and tigers.
    The resolution also recommended that law enforcement be increased,
    forensics analyses be developed or improved, substitutes or
    alternatives be sought, and captive-bred or artificially propagated
    sources of wild specimens be developed. A number of nongovernmental
    organizations responded to the CITES requests that countries develop
    public outreach projects and materials and provide technical support.
    The international TRAFFIC Network, which now consists of 20 offices
    worldwide, provides governments with up-to-date information on these
    exploited species to help develop a profile of the trade and to
    identify those dealing in and consuming the products (Callister and
    Bythewood 1995; Leader-Williams 1992; Mills 1997; Mills and Jackson
    1994; Mulliken and Haywood 1994; Howell et al. 1992; Gaski and Johnson
    1994, and others).

     Table 1. Traditional Chinese Medicinal Use of Select Wild Animal Parts
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Part Used                       Indication Treated*
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bear Gall..............................  high fever and convulsions;
                                              spasms; hot skin lesions; red,
                                              painful, swollen eyes; trauma;
                                              sprains; swelling and pain;
                                              hemorrhoids
    Musk Grains............................  convulsions; delirium; stupor
                                              and fainting; closed
                                              disorders; tetanic collapse;
                                              phlegm collapse; seizures;
                                              swelling and pain; toxic
                                              sores; carbuncles; coronary
                                              artery disease
    Rhino Horn.............................  extreme heat or heat signs;
                                              high fever; erythemia;
                                              purpura; nosebleed; vomiting
                                              of blood; convulsions;
                                              delirium; manic behavior
    Tiger Bone.............................  migratory joint pain and
                                              stiffness; paralysis; weak
                                              knees and legs; spasms;
                                              stiffness and pain the lower
                                              back; pain in bones
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Bensky & Gamble, 199,
    * TCM evaluates disorders or imbalances in the whole body or system
      rather than focusing solely on symptoms or indications.

    The North American Market for Endangered Species
        Long before CITES passed the 1994 and 1997 rhino and tiger
    resolutions, it was presumed that the demand for rhino and tiger parts
    and products had been reduced or almost eliminated in the United
    States. In 1973, when the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) came into
    effect, the commercial trade of many ESA-designated species, including
    the tiger and all endangered rhino populations, was prohibited. The ban
    restricted supplies for the consumer's luxury demand to buy tiger skins
    for decoration and adornment, and tiger and rhino sport-hunting
    trophies, but the some demand for tiger and rhino parts and products--
    as used in traditional East Asian medicine--persists in North America
    and has yet to be addressed regionally or nationally.
        Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) uses animal and plant
    derivatives to prepare medications in two forms--as individually
    prepared prescriptions and as over-the-counter medicines. Unprocessed
    or partially processed animal and plant parts--``materia medica''--are
    mixed according to ancient formulas, usually by a traditional
    practitioner. Just as in so-called modern Western medicine,
    prescriptions are dispensed after a practitioner has diagnosed the
    disorder or illness of the patient. The medicines are usually mixed in
    traditional medicine shops or clinics but may be prepared and consumed
    at home. These same animal parts may also be mixed according to such
    formulas but then processed into pills, tablets, or tonics. These
    medicines are produced in mass quantities and packaged in a factory.
    The consumer purchases these products the same way as Western over-the-
    counter medicines, often selecting the medication upon the
    recommendation of a sales clerk or family member, or using their own
    judgment. Most of these medicines are manufactured in China and are
    sold in markets worldwide.
        Conservationists have long debated the threat posed by the trade in
    medicines containing or claiming to contain protected and regulated
    species. To date, wildlife forensics analyses of these medicines
    indicate that many do not actually contain the parts or derivatives of
    the animals identified on the medicines' lists of ingredients. These
    same tests, however, often cannot detect very low levels of animal
    parts in medicines nor identify parts or derivatives that have been
    changed by high temperatures or other processing. Also, some of the
    tests used are not very specific. For example, the test to verify the
    presence of tiger bone can determine the presence of bone but cannot
    identify the species or even recognize the source as cat.
    Conservationists believe, for the most part, that whether or not the
    medicines contain these species, the advertising and promoting of these
    products as containing animal parts sustains consumer demand and
    perpetuates the conservation problem. Recognizing this and the still
    growing science of wildlife forensics, the parties to CITES decided
    (Resolution Conf. 9.6) that these medicines should be treated as if
    they contain these derivatives or as ``readily recognizable'' parts and
    derivatives in CITES lingo. As such, trade in these medicines should be
    prohibited or regulated, depending on the species. In the 1994
    resolutions on tiger and rhino trade, CITES parties also recommended
    that all parties eliminate the demand for tiger and rhino products.
        Eliminating the demand for a product--especially one that has
    humanitarian and cultural roots--is a difficult task and one that
    requires a multidisciplinary approach. Traditional tools, such as
    better implementation of CITES or increased efforts toward cooperative
    law enforcement, will not fully stop the illegal trade. Because most of
    the international trade of tiger parts used in traditional medicine is
    illegal in countries under CITES and the ESA--as well as in China,
    where the manufactured medicines are produced--TRAFFIC recognized that
    before efforts could be undertaken to eliminate the trade (as requested
    by the resolutions), the market would have to be more defined and
    consumers identified. By its very nature, the illegality of the market
    precludes precisely documenting the exact numbers of consumers and
    products used. By using standard surveying techniques and sociological
    research, TRAFFIC planned, instead, to identify and assess the behavior
    of the persons demanding the products, as well as the nature of the
    demand itself.
        To understand the behavior of the person demanding these products,
    in July 1997, TRAFFIC North America hired a professional market
    research film. Using East Asian researchers and the appropriate
    languages, the firm surveyed ethnic Chinese-Americans on their use and
    knowledge of endangered species derivatives for medicines. Traditional
    East Asian medicine has used the parts and products of rhinos, tigers,
    and other animals for centuries. A recent TRAFFIC report highlights the
    persistent trade in these products among some consumers in spite of
    legal prohibitions (Mills 1997). Because East Asian traditional
    medicine has its roots in the more ancient traditional Chinese
    medicine, TRAFFIC decided to focus on TOM rather than the larger and
    more broadly defined East Asian medicine market and its demand.
    Focusing on the roots of the tradition should make the results more
    applicable. The results of that survey will be released in the near
    future.
        To clearly understand the nature of the demand, TRAFFIC North
    America investigated the display and sale of endangered species
    products in Canada and the United States. Initiated in late 1996 and
    completed in the fall of 1997, the investigation documented the variety
    and availability of manufactured traditional medicines that contained
    or claimed to contain parts and products from endangered and regulated
    wildlife throughout the region. The investigator used for comparison a
    1995 TRAFFIC report that documented the types of products containing
    protected and regulated species sold in the United States (Gaski and
    Johnson 1994). The 1996-97 survey results also were compared with a
    similar survey (Mills 1996) that was conducted over a three-year period
    in mainland China, where most tiger and rhino products are manufactured
    and may still be, despite a manufacturing and export ban imposed in the
    mid-199Os. These comparisons helped to gauge the importance and,
    therefore, the significance of North American markets for these
    products. This report chronicles the results of that survey.
    The Legality of the North American Market
        Commercial trade of raw rhino horn and of tiger or leopard bone and
    their derivative products is prohibited by international treaty (all
    are listed in Appendix I of CITES) as well as by domestic legislation
    in several countries, including China (Notice Promulgated by the State
    Council on the Prohibition of Trade in Rhinoceros Horn and Tiger Bone),
    the United States (Endangered Species Act [ESA] and the Lacey Act), and
    Canada (The Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of
    International and Interprovincial Trade Act [WAPPRIITA]).
        The ESA prohibits the import of, export of, and interstate commerce
    in live animals, raw parts, or products of taxa listed as threatened or
    endangered, including rhinos (except Southern white rhinos) and tigers.
    Thus, the import and interstate commerce of medicines containing rhino
    horn and/or tiger bone is a violation of the ESA. The Lacey Act
    prohibits the import, export, transport, sale, or purchase of fish and
    wildlife taken or possessed in violation of state, federal, Indian
    tribal, or foreign laws. Thus, tiger bone or rhino horn medicines
    possessed in violation of foreign law and subsequently imported to the
    United States would violate the Lacey Act.
        There are, however, two important drawbacks to the current legal
    situation in the United States. First, although a product may be
    labeled as containing rhino horn or tiger bone, under the ESA and the
    Lacey Act, the burden of proving that those products actually contain
    the species listed rests with the government. As a result, few, if any,
    prosecutions have occurred involving the illegal importation of
    manufactured tiger bone and rhino horn medicines because current
    forensic techniques are as yet unable to identify tiger bone or rhino
    horn in medicinal products. Second, both the ESA and Lacey Act address
    the issue of import of, export of, and interstate commerce in rhino and
    tiger products, but they largely fail to address the sale of those
    products within a state. This enforcement area is currently left to
    state law, though few states have passed legislation to address the
    sale of foreign endangered species.
        In 1993, China issued the Notice Promulgated by the State Council
    on the Prohibition of Trade in Rhinoceros Horn and Tiger Bone, which
    prohibited all use of derivatives of rhino horn and tiger bone,
    including the manufacture and export of commercial products (all
    production was banned after 29 May 1993 and export after 30 November
    1993).
        In Canada, WAPPRIITA prohibits commercial import, export, or
    possession for commercial sale of any part of or product derived from a
    listed endangered species under WAPPRIITA, which includes all CITES
    Appendix I species (Anon. 1997). It is also illegal to import any
    wildlife part or derivative that was obtained or exported in violation
    of the law of another country. Thus, the import and the interprovincial
    or interterritorial commerce of medicines containing rhinoceros horn or
    tiger bone would be a violation of WAPPRIITA. However, Canada has the
    same problem with enforcement as does the United States because the
    burden of proof lies with the government and it generally cannot be
    proven that these medicines contain tiger or other endangered species.
    As a result, no prosecutions have ever been successful. And while
    possession for the purpose of sale is federally prohibited, it is
    generally difficult, if not impossible, to trace the origin of
    medicines in shops back to their import into Canada.
        Despite these legal prohibitions and the efforts of wildlife
    enforcement agencies (Gaski and Johnson 1994, Chalifour 1996), products
    containing or claiming to contain rhinoceros horn and tiger bone
    continue to be available in North America, particularly within Asian
    communities in large cities such as New York, San Francisco, Toronto,
    and Vancouver, where these items are used in TCM. Conservationists
    believe that this ongoing availability constitutes a violation of CITES
    and of domestic legislation, is a threat to the species concerned, and
    should be stopped by wildlife law enforcement agencies.
    Canadian Efforts to Eliminate the Illegal Market
        In mid-1994, a joint investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted
    Police and the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) uncovered more than
    19,000 illegally imported packaged tiger medicines and more than 26,000
    other illegally imported packaged wildlife medicines in a British
    Columbian warehouse (Chalifour 1996). This discovery prompted a
    crackdown on illegal medicinal wildlife trade in the Pacific and Yukon
    CWS region of Canada. As part of this crackdown the region has adopted
    a policy of 100 percent referral by customs officials to CWS for
    inspection of any shipment declared as containing East Asian medicines
    (Chalifour pers. comm. 1998). Careful inspection of these shipments by
    CWS follows. A similar referral system is in effect in the Ontario
    region of CWS, and other proactive or preventive efforts have also been
    undertaken in other regions as well. For example, many regional CWS
    offices work closely with importers of traditional East Asian medicine
    to ensure that importers are complying with the laws relating to
    medicines containing endangered species.
        In 1996, a search warrant served by Revenue Canada Customs on
    another British Columbian company resulted in the seizure by CWS of 180
    boxes of goods that contained illegally smuggled items such as raw
    tiger bone, bear gall bladders, and alligator parts (Chalifour 1996).
    Although there have been many seizures of tiger and rhino parts and
    products (including some raw parts) in Canada, there have been no
    successful prosecutions relating to the illegal trade in tiger or rhino
    parts or products.. Many CWS regions are also training customs agents
    to screen for and identify CITES goods coming into Canada.
        Environment Canada has produced some materials to inform travelers
    and the traditional Asian medicine community about Canadian wildlife
    laws. For example, Environment Canada has published a multilingual
    brochure, poster, and video, ``Endangered Species and the Traveler.''
    (The brochure and video are available in English, French, Chinese,
    Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese.) Environment Canada also teamed up
    with WWF-Canada and Karuna Community Services (a community Buddhist
    group in Toronto) in 1997 to produce a brochure on how WAPPRIITA
    legislation applies' to medicines that claim to contain wildlife and
    other ingredients derived from tigers or rhinos. Some CWS regions
    display CITES exhibits at international airports within their
    jurisdiction. The Pacific and Yukon CWS region, for instance, has an
    interactive, multilingual exhibit at the Vancouver airport. In
    partnership with WWF-Canada, the Ontario CWS office is hoping to place
    a similar exhibit in the Toronto airport.
        Regulating trade in CITES products falls under federal
    jurisdiction. WAPPRIITA also makes it an offense to transport any wild
    animal or plant part from one province or territory to another if it
    was taken, possessed, distributed, or transported in violation of a
    provincial or territorial law, or transported without provincial or
    territorial permits.
    U.S. Efforts to Eliminate the Illegal Market
        U.S. efforts to stop illegal trade are comparable to those in
    Canada, where most law enforcement efforts focus first on regional
    problems and then become even more focused on problems around urban
    ports. There does not seem to be a concerted national or even regional
    effort to address the illegal trade associated with traditional East
    Asian medicines. However, two interagency task forces, one in Los
    Angeles and a more recent one in San Francisco, arose from the
    preliminary law enforcement efforts that required the cooperation,
    expertise, and authority of a number of federal, state, and city
    wildlife, judicial, and health agencies. A more comprehensive
    discussion of these task forces can be found in the Los Angeles and San
    Francisco sections of this report. The efforts of these two task forces
    need to be emulated in other urban areas of the United States,
    particularly in New York City.
        The CITES Management Authority of the United States and the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Office of Management Authority
    launched a pilot public outreach project in Los Angeles in 1995. The
    project is reviewed in the Los Angeles section of this report. While
    the USFWS has not been able to maintain the intensity of its efforts
    because of financial limitations, it has maintained contact with the
    traditional medicine community in Los Angeles and has continued to
    provide information through its Web site, factsheets and other
    materials, plus occasional presentations at symposia and traditional
    medicines meetings, when invited. In addition, the USFWS used materials
    developed by World Wildlife Fund to collaborate on a project with WWF
    and the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) to initiate a
    public outreach program in the traditional medicine community in Los
    Angeles. TRAFFIC North America and the World Wildlife Fund undertook
    this sociological survey of Chinese Americans to identify the demand
    for and use of medicinal products that use parts of endangered species,
    the attitudes of Chinese Americans toward the use of such medicines,
    and the conservation of endangered species. The report of that work is
    described in the introduction of this publication and will form the
    basis of an informative education outreach project in Los Angeles. In
    1996, a small group of interested teachers attended a training session,
    and the USFWS provided substitute teachers to take their classes during
    that period (Anonymous 1997).
        This U.S. outreach effort will involve the traditional medicine
    community in ongoing efforts to eliminate the trade and use of
    medicines made from illegally imported protected species. As a prelude
    to that effort, WWF will launch a plan for its ``Year for the Tiger''
    during the Chinese lunar new year that is the ``Year of the Tiger.''
    Elements of that plan are to eliminate the trade of tiger products,
    establish tiger conservation trust funds for habitat protection,
    increase resources for tiger antipoaching efforts, and help to build
    public awareness of tiger endangerment around the world.
        Other nongovernmental organizations in the United States, such as
    the Wildlife Conservation Society in New York, will be launching
    similar initiatives in 1998 for the Year of the Tiger.
                              How Did We Find Out?
        TRAFFIC gathered information on offers to sell medicines that
    contain or claim to contain legally protected species--rhino
    (Rhinocerotidae spp.) and tiger (Panthera tigris). TRAFFIC also
    collected information on medicines that contain or claim to contain
    legally regulated species--musk deer (Moschus spp.) and bear (Ursidae
    spp.). This compilation was to differentiate between medicines that
    could never have been legally imported into North America and those
    that may have been legally imported if certain requirements had been
    met under Canadian or U.S. law or under CITES provisions. Another
    legally protected species--leopard (Pantera pardus)--was added as the
    survey began in response to increasing evidence that leopard is being
    used in place of tiger in many traditional medicines (Mills 1997; Gaski
    and Johnson 1995). Table I lists the medicinal uses of the parts and
    derivatives of those species. For this report, such medicines will be
    called protected species medicines or regulated species medicines.
        Legally protected species are those that cannot be imported into
    the United States or Canada for commercial purposes under CITES
    provisions. The parts of all of those animals are prohibited from
    commercial trade by CITES Appendix I. In addition, the tiger, leopard,
    and all but one rhino population (the southern white rhino subspecies)
    are also listed in the United States as endangered under the ESA and
    cannot be traded commercially. The offer to sell medicines containing
    or claiming to contain those species in North America suggests that
    they were illegally imported.
        Legally regulated species are those that are governed by CITES and
    that generally may be imported with a permit from the country of origin
    or of reexport. Two taxa in this investigation--musk deer and bears--
    are identified as regulated, although some populations or species
    within these taxa are listed in CITES Appendix I or II. Therefore,
    medicines that contain these taxa may or may not have been legally
    imported, depending on the species or population used. Six national
    populations of musk deer are listed in CITES Appendix I, and a few--
    notably the Chinese population--are listed in Appendix II. The former
    may not be imported for commercial purposes but the latter may be
    imported with permits. Most populations or species of bears also are
    listed in Appendix I, but a few--such as the North American black
    bear--are listed in Appendix II. Again, the former my not be imported
    for commercial purposes, and the latter my be imported with permits. So
    the offer to sell medicines containing or claiming to contain the words
    ``musk'' or ``bear'' does not necessarily suggest that they were
    illegally imported.
        The United States is home to a small population of ethnic-Chinese,
    some of whom have lived here for many generations and some of whom have
    recently arrived from mainland China and other countries. The 1990
    population of Chinese in the United States was 1.7 million, or about
    0.7 percent of the U.S. population. The ethnic-Chinese population of
    Canada is about a third of the population of the United States, but it
    represents a larger percentage of the total population of Canada. The
    1991 population of ethnic-Chinese in Canada was 587,000, or about 2
    percent of Canada's population.
        Because tradition and culture are such an intrinsic part of the
    lives of Chinese people, physical manifestations are evident wherever
    they live, particularly where they establish and maintain uniquely
    Chinese neighborhoods, known as Chinatowns in North America. TRAFFIC
    decided to focus on documenting the availability of tiger and rhino
    medicines in North American Chinatowns because of the concentration of
    shops that presumably sell those products. TRAFFIC recognized that
    Chinatowns were visited by Chinese and non-Chinese alike and that the
    results of the survey would represent the market throughout North
    America.
        Although the final study covered seven cities, TRAFFIC initially
    identified two U.S. cities with the largest Chinese populations--New
    York City and San Francisco--and two cities in Canada--Vancouver and
    Toronto. TRAFFIC thought Toronto would provide a central regional
    perspective. TRAFFIC added Atlanta to provide a southern U.S.
    perspective, plus two U.S. cities on the West Coast--Seattle and Los
    Angeles--because demographic information suggests that most of the
    Chinese-North American population lives on the West Coast.
        TRAFFIC engaged the services of an independent researcher of
    Chinese descent (hereinafter referred to as the investigator, who is an
    expert in conducting such surveys. The investigator spoke fluent
    Mandarin Chinese. He was chosen for his expertise in traditional
    Chinese medicine in general and for his knowledge of manufactured TCM
    products specifically. Although the investigator posed as a customer
    and did not introduce himself as an investigator for TRAFFIC, there
    were no attempts to trick any shop owner into offering to sell a
    product that might not normally have been readily available in the
    shop. TRAFFIC wished to document products that would be readily
    available to any customer. However, if information on products not
    displayed was provided by the shop owner or sales clerk during
    conversations with the investigator, that information was noted.
        TRAFFIC sent the investigator to the Chinatown section of each city
    to locate East Asian pharmacies and markets (hereinafter referred to as
    ``shops'') to be surveyed. The investigator surveyed every shop he
    encountered for the display of or offer to sell the target medicines.
    No effort was made to randomize the sample; however, this potential
    limitation in sampling design was likely offset by the high percentage
    of shops that were surveyed in each city. In other words, the
    investigator surveyed most shops in the Chinatowns of each city.
    TRAFFIC believes that this method strongly suggests that the samples
    were representative of each city and, therefore, comparable.
        The investigator surveyed all open display areas for raw parts of
    rhino and tiger, as well as for manufactured medicines containing rhino
    horn and/or tiger bone. Whenever possible, the investigator reviewed
    the ingredients lists of manufactured medicines in both Chinese and
    English to see if rhino horn and/or tiger bone were listed. After
    exiting the shop, all displayed medicines listing rhino hoary, tiger
    bone, leopard bone, musk, or bear bile were recorded along with the
    prices and dates of manufacture, if listed (normally, the medicines had
    no dates). During the course of a conversation, the investigator
    sometimes asked about the availability of raw rhino horn, tiger-bone
    wine, or tiger-bone plaster in a number of other shops. No assumptions
    were made regarding the actual ingredients of any commercial-medicine,
    and only those medicines that listed the ingredients on or within the
    packaging were listed as protected species or regulated species
    medicines.
        TRAFFIC used the same sampling methodology as that used in a survey
    conducted over a three year period, from 1993 through 1995 by TRAFFIC
    East Asia in China (Mills 1997) so that the results could be compared.
    Overall, TRAFFIC wanted to derive an accurate count of (1) the number
    of shops offering for sale one or more medicines listing tiger, rhino,
    leopard, bear, or musk deer as ingredients; (2) the average number of
    medicines of protected or regulated taxa offered for sale per shop; and
    (3) the number of different brands or types of medicines offered for
    sale.
                               What Is Available?
        The seven cities selected as targets for the market survey
    represent a significant percentage of Chinese-North American
    populations. The five U.S. cities--Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York, San
    Francisco, and Seattle--included 61 percent of all Chinese-Americans
    living in the United States (according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census
    for 1990). The two Canadian cities--Toronto and Vancouver--had 69
    percent of the total Chinese-Canadian population (according to
    Statistics Canada figures for 1991).
        The survey results are summarized on a city-by-city basis in this
    section. Of the 110 shops surveyed, 50 percent (55 shops) offered for
    sale one or more protected species medicines, or medicines or products
    that contained or claimed to contain the target protected species--
    tiger, rhinos, and leopard. Forty-six percent (42 shops) offered for
    sale one or more regulated species
        The cities with the greatest percentage of shops that offer for
    sale medicines containing protected species are in descending order:
    New York (83 percent, or 10 of 12 shops); Vancouver (63 percent, or 15
    of 24 shops); Seattle (50 percent, or 6 of 12 shops); Toronto (50
    percent, or 10 of 20 shops); Atlanta (50 percent, or 3 of 6 shops); San
    Francisco (42 percent, or 8 of 19 shops); and Los Angeles (18 percent,
    or 3 of 17 shops).
        As shown in Figure 1, the medicines most commonly found offered for
    sale in North America were those that contained or claimed to contain
    tiger and musk parts and products. The least commonly found medicines
    were those containing or claiming to bear parts and products.
        Of protected species medicines, raw parts or medicines listing
    rhinoceros horn or tiger bone as ingredients were found in 55 shops (50
    percent).
        Raw rhinoceros horn was found in only one shop (less than one
    percent) in Vancouver. All other items found for sale were manufactured
    medicines. Tiger-bone plaster was found in 14 shops (13 percent) in six
    cities. Tiger-bone wine was found in six shops (6 percent), five of
    which were in Vancouver. Medicines listing leopard bone as an
    ingredient were found in 18 shops (17 percent).
        On a positive note, 40 shops (37 percent) surveyed did not offer to
    sell any protected or regulated species medicines. Of the total shops
    surveyed, 12 percent offered to sell regulated species medicines only--
    bear or musk deer--that may or may not have been legally imported.
        At least 31 different types of rhino-or tiger-containing medicines,
    produced by between 29 and 34 different manufacturers, were found
    offered for sale during the survey. A precise count of manufacturers is
    not possible because the names of some manufacturers differed slightly
    on different labels and might actually represent the same company. For
    example, Guiyang Chinese Medicine Factory and Guiyang Chinese Medicine
    Pharmaceutical Factory may or may not be the same manufacturer.
    Atlanta
        The Chinese-American population in Atlanta, Georgia, was the
    smallest in all the cities surveyed. Approximately 11,000 Chinese-
    Americans live in Atlanta, representing about 0.6 percent of the U.S.
    Chinese-American population (according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census
    figures for 1990). The six shops surveyed in Atlanta's Chinatown were
    on New Peach Road and Buford Highway.
        To TRAFFIC's knowledge, there have been no focused federal, state,
    or local law enforcement efforts to eliminate or even control the trade
    of protected species products in Atlanta. Also, there no outreach
    efforts appear to be in place to advise or educate Atlanta citizens
    about this problem.
        What's For Sale? The results and percentages shown in Figure 2 (and
    the discussion that follows) are not cumulative. Most Atlanta shops
    sold more than one medicine, and some shops sold protected and
    regulated species medicines. This small sample size limits the
    conclusions and comparisons that can be made regarding this city.
        Because Atlanta's Chinatown is small, the investigator visited only
    six shops. As seen in Figure 2, musk was the most common species
    medicine found in those shops. Protected species medicines--containing
    or claiming to contain tiger, leopard, or rhino--were offered for sale
    in three shops (50 percent). One shop (17 percent) had tiger-bone
    plaster; none had raw rhino horn or tiger-bone wine. Three shops (50
    percent) had other medicines that contained or claimed to contain rhino
    horn or tiger bone, with an average of one such item offered for sale
    per shop. One shop offered for sale five different types of medicines
    containing or claiming to contain tiger bone or rhino horn as
    ingredients. All of the shops sold at least one protected or regulated
    species medicine.
        In two shops, the salespeople told the investigator that tiger bone
    had been banned a long time ago. A musk medicine was recommended as a
    substitute for a tiger-bone plaster in one shop
        Only 3 of the 14 protected or regulated species medicines available
    for sale had the date of manufacture on the package--two were dated
    1993 and the other 1991. In one shop, the salesperson said the medicine
    with tiger bone was shipped to the store within the past year. Two of
    the medicines offered for sale had crudely altered packaging. On one
    medicine, the tiger bone ingredient was listed but then crossed out
    with ink. On the other, a completely new list without tiger bone was
    glued over a list claiming the medicine contained tiger bone.
    Los Angeles
        The Chinese-American population in Los Angeles, California, is the
    third largest in all U.S. and North American cities surveyed. About
    308,000 people, represent about 19 percent of the U.S. population of
    Chinese-American population (according to Bureau of the Census figures
    for 1990). The 17 shops surveyed in Los Angeles were on Broadway, North
    Spring, New High, and Hill streets.
        Los Angeles is the site of major law enforcement and public
    outreach efforts, among them a law enforcement task force that focuses
    on traditional medicines. The recently-formed Wildlife Task Force is a
    multiagency initiative consisting of inspectors and agents from the
    U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Food and Drug
    Administration, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. The task force,
    developed by a team of U.S. Customs import specialists, seeks to
    address illegal wildlife trade in general and the illegal importation
    of traditional Chinese medicines specifically. The focus on TCM
    occurred largely because the rate of consumption of illegally imported
    endangered species in the Los Angeles area is one of the most
    significant in North America and there has been little success in
    combating the illegal trade into the city.
        The task force meets regularly to discuss the successes and
    failures of past interdiction efforts and to make future plans to
    address the trade. The task force has conducted a number of concerted
    law enforcement efforts (called ``blitzes'') by thoroughly inspecting
    international cargo shipments, passenger flights from target countries,
    and packages from key countries at the international mail division.
        One example of a successful blitz was an inspection of a China
    Eastern Airlines passenger flight. The agencies involved in the task
    force inspected the baggage of 223 passengers and found 45 violations,
    including 18 agriculture violations, 12 fish and wildlife violations,
    and 15 food and drug violations. Violations ranged from personal
    shipments of tiger bone plasters and musk deer medicines to a
    commercial shipment of herbal medicines.
        On 28 January 1994, agents from the California Department of Fish
    and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Alcohol,
    Tobacco and Firearms, and Los Angeles Police Department broke up a bear
    parts poaching and smuggling operation. William Jin Tack Lee, a Korean-
    American businessman, allegedly operated a hunting club that arranged
    illegal bear hunts for overseas clients. Capping the 1 8-month
    investigation was the arrest of Joseph Chang, who purchased thousands
    of dollars worth of bear gallbladders from undercover agents. Chang was
    allegedly involved in a bear parts trading operation that extended to
    four western states (Anon. 1994).
        In September 1994, Chang Hao An was apprehended at Los Angeles
    International Airport as he attempted to import a complete Amur tiger
    (Panthera tigris altaica) skeleton, along with 200 vials of dried bear
    bile, two large bear gallbladders, and 60 boxes containing rhinoceros
    horn, saiga antelope, and musk deer pills. U.S. Customs discovered the
    items in Chang's baggage and detained him. Chang was arrested by U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service agents, prosecuted for smuggling, and
    sentenced to 21 months in prison (Anon. 1995).
        On 6 September 1995, U.S. Customs and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service officials seized more than five kilos of bear bile at Los
    Angeles International Airport. Agents also confiscated musk deer
    glands, rhinoceros horn pills, and tiger bone plasters from the clothes
    and baggage of four Chinese nationals. The subjects were charged with
    10 counts of smuggling, unlawful importation of wildlife, and
    violations of the U.S. Endangered Species Act. All four defendants pled
    guilty to a misdemeanor, Two were released with time already served;
    the other two were sentenced to prison: one for one year and one for
    eight months (Anon. 1995a).
        On 25 September 1995, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents in
    Alaska seized 60 brown bear (Ursus arctos) gallbladders that were
    concealed in a shipment of two tons of Russian reindeer (Rangifer
    tarandus) velvet antler headed for Los Angeles (Anon. 1995b)
        On 8 September 1995, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service authorities at
    Los Angeles International Airport seized 45 brown bear gallbladders and
    20 seal (Callorhinus ursinus) penises smuggled inside a commercial
    shipment of reindeer antlers from Russia (Anon. 1995c).
        On 19 October 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launched a
    public education pilot program in Los Angeles to inform citizens that
    certain products for sale in Asian medicine shops may contain parts
    from endangered species, as well as toxins that may be potentially
    harmful to human health. The event was a joint effort among federal and
    state agencies and nongovernmental organizations to provide new
    information to consumers and to clarify U.S. law enforcement
    responsibilities for protecting endangered species.
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service worked closely with the Los
    Angeles Unified School District. the Los Angeles Zoo, TRAFFIC, and WWF
    to develop a TOM educational program that could be offered in middle
    schools, adult education programs, and workshops. Teachers received
    training enabling them to explain the health risks associated with the
    use of some packaged medicines, the laws protecting endangered species,
    and the reasons that possession and sale of products containing parts
    of endangered species may be illegal (Anon. 1995d).
        The percentages in Figure 3 (and the discussion that follows) are
    not cumulative because some of the shops offered for sale more than one
    medicine and some offered for sale both protected and regulated species
    medicines.
        Of the 17 shops in Los Angeles surveyed by the investigator, 13 (76
    percent) did not offer for sale any protected or regulated species
    medicines. Leopard and musk were the most common species medicines
    offered for sale in the shops. Three shops (18 percent) offered for
    sale protected species medicines that contained or claimed to contain
    leopard or tiger, and one of those shops had two different brands. The
    average number of tiger and rhino items offered for sale per shop was
    insignificant, since only one shop offered to sell one rhino or tiger
    medicine. Three shops (18 percent) offered for sale protected species
    medicines and three offered for sale regulated species medicines.
        Sales clerks in 12 of the 17 shops (71 percent) were aware of a ban
    on selling tiger bone. One clerk indicated that the sale of musk was
    also prohibited, and another indicated that the Food and Drug
    Administration prohibits the sale of any medicine containing tiger bone
    or musk. Another clerk said that tiger bone could not be imported or
    sold, and yet another said that it cannot be sold anywhere in the world
    because the tiger is a protected animal.
        No medicines were seen with altered packaging and none had dates of
    manufacture. Coincidentally, Los Angeles was the last city surveyed,
    and the investigator concluded that Los Angeles was the ``cleanest''
    city he had visited in North America.
    New York City
        The Chinese-American population in New York City was the second
    largest in all U.S. and North American cities surveyed. The approximate
    321,000 people represent about 19 percent of the U.S. population of
    Chinese-Americans (according to U.S. Bureau of the Census figures for
    1990). The 12 shops visited in New York City were on Canal, Lafayette,
    Mulberry, Elizabeth, Baxter, Bayard, and Mott streets.
        To TRAFFIC's knowledge, there have been no focused federal, state,
    or local law enforcement efforts to eliminate or even control the trade
    of protected species products in New York City. However, the Wildlife
    Conservation Society in New York initiated a pilot strategy for public
    outreach that focuses on Chinese communities in the Flushing, Queens,
    and Manhattan Chinatowns, along with an education project that is
    initially working with school children of 8-10 years of age in the
    Brooklyn Chinese community (Bolze, pers. communication).
        What's for Sale? The percentages in Figure 4 (and the discussion
    that follows) are not cumulative because some shops offered for sale
    more than one medicine and some offered for sale both protected and
    regulated species medicines.
        Twelve shops were surveyed in New York City and only two (17
    percent) did not offer for sale any protected or regulated species
    medicines. The most common species medicines offered for sale were
    those that contained or claimed to contain tiger and musk. Ten shops
    (83 percent) offered for sale protected species medicines that
    contained or claimed to contain tiger, leopard, or rhino. Five shops
    (42 percent) had tiger-bone plaster; none had raw rhino horn or tiger-
    bone wine. One shop offered up to four rhino or tiger medicines. The
    average number of rhino and tiger items offered for sale per shop was
    two.
        Six shops (50 percent) offered for sale regulated species medicines
    that contained or claimed to contain musk or bear bile. One shop
    offered to sell four different brands of medicines that listed tiger
    bone, rhino, or a combination of both, as ingredients.
        In 3 of the 12 shops (25 percent), sales clerks told the
    investigator that tiger bone was banned, and one clerk also indicated
    that musk was banned. Another sales clerk indicated that he was aware
    that someone in the city had been caught selling rhino horn.
        None of the medicines offered for sale had dates of manufacture,
    and none had altered packaging. The name of one medicine, ``Tianqi
    Shexiang Hugu Zhuifenggao,'' suggested that it contained tiger bone,
    but no ingredient list was printed or inserted in the package to
    confirm this.
    San Francisco
        The Chinese-American population in San Francisco, California, is
    the largest of all U.S. and North American cities surveyed.
    Approximately 332,000 people represent about 20 percent of the U.S.
    population of Chinese-Americans (according to U.S. Bureau of the Census
    figures for 1990). The 19 shops visited in San Francisco's Chinatown
    were on Stockton, Clay, Washington, Pacific, Grant, and Jackson
    streets.
        Two years ago, San Francisco created a multiagency task force
    similar to the one in Los Angeles to address the illegal wildlife
    import and export in San Francisco. The task force is headed by a
    member of the U.S. Attorney's Office and has members from the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Customs,
    U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and
    California Department of Health Services. Given the large Chinese
    population and the TOM industry in the San Francisco area, the illegal
    trade in endangered species parts and products is the task force's
    primary concern.
        To TRAFFIC's knowledge, there have been no focused public outreach
    efforts in San Francisco.
        Of the shops surveyed in San Francisco, 8 of 19 (42 percent) did
    not offer for sale any protected or regulated species medicines. The
    most common species medicines found in the 19 shops were those that
    contained or claimed to contain tiger (the most common) and musk. Eight
    shops (42 percent) offered for sale protected species medicines
    containing or claiming to contain tiger, leopard, or rhino. Two shops
    (11 percent) had tiger-bone plaster, but none had raw rhino horn or
    tiger-bone wine. Eight shops (42 percent) offered for sale other
    medicines with rhino horn or tiger bone or both. The average number of
    rhino horn or tiger bone items offered per shop was less than one. One
    shop offered to sell five different types of medicines that listed
    tiger bone or rhino horn as an ingredient.
        Six shops (32 percent) offered to sell regulated species medicines.
    Six shops (32 percent) offered to sell medicines listing musk as an
    ingredient.
        In six shops (32 percent), the sales clerks told the investigator
    that tiger bone was banned. None of the medicines had dates of
    manufacture. The packaging and ingredients lists of three medicines
    which were seen for sale elsewhere in the United States and Canada and
    were known to have tiger bone as an ingredient, did not list it on the
    package. No packages were altered nor were any ingredients struck off
    the lists, as seen in other cities.
    Seattle
        The Chinese-American population in Seattle, Washington, was the
    second smallest in all the cities surveyed. Approximately 29,000 people
    represent about two percent of the U.S. population of Chinese-Americans
    (according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census figures for 1990). The 12
    shops surveyed in Seattle's Chinatown were on Maynard, King, and Weller
    streets, and on Beacon, Seventh, and 128th avenues.
        To TRAFFIC's knowledge, there have been no focused federal, state,
    or local law enforcement efforts to eliminate or even control the trade
    of protected species products in Seattle. Also, no outreach efforts
    appear to have advised or educated Seattle citizens about this problem.
        The percentages in Figure 6 (and the discussion that follows) are
    not cumulative because some shops offered for sale more than one
    medicine and some offered for sale both protected and regulated species
    medicines.
        Of the shops surveyed in Seattle, 4 of 12 (33 percent) did not
    offer for sale any protected or regulated species medicines. Of the 12,
    only 10 shops had commercial Asian medicines of any type. Tiger, rhino,
    and musk were the most common species medicines found in the shops
    surveyed. Six shops (50 percent) offered to sell protected species
    medicines. Rhino horn or tiger bone items were offered for sale in six
    shops (50 percent). The average number of rhino horn or tiger bone
    items offered for sale per shop was two.
        Six shops (50 percent) had regulated species medicines. One shop
    had 11 different types of medicines listing tiger bone, rhino horn,
    musk, or leopard bone, or combinations of those, as ingredients.
        In six shops (50 percent), sales clerks told the investigator that
    tiger bone was banned. One clerk said that tiger bone is illegal in the
    United States but is available in Asia. Another indicated that musk was
    also banned.
        None of the medicines had dates of manufacture. None had altered
    packaging, although one medicine previously identified as claiming to
    contain rhino did not have an ingredient list, so it could have
    contained rhino.
    Toronto
        The Chinese-Canadian population in Toronto, Ontario, is the largest
    in any Canadian city and third largest in all North American cities
    surveyed. Approximately 210,000 people represent about 36 percent of
    the Chinese-Canadian population (according to Statistics Canada figures
    for 1991). The 20 shops visited in Toronto's Chinatown were on Dundas,
    St. Andrews, Huron, and Spadina streets.
        Efforts to control trade in protected species in Toronto has been
    focused largely on importation. The CWS Ontario region recently
    completed a pilot project wherein they trained two customs officers in
    Toronto to be CITES specialists. Although successful, such training
    projects are not yet a permanent policy of the region. The same region
    also produced a multi-lingual brochure on WAPPRIITA and the trade in
    medicines containing wildlife ingredients, in cooperation with WWF
    Canada and Karuna Community Services (Anon. 1997).
        To TRAFFIC's knowledge, there has been no comprehensive provincial
    or local law enforcement efforts to eliminate or even control the trade
    of protected species in Toronto. The above-mentioned brochure has been
    distributed and there are plans to have a formal meeting with importers
    of traditional medicine, however, no overall public awareness effort
    has been undertaken and no outreach efforts appear to have been
    initiated to advise or educate Toronto citizens about this problem.
        The percentages in Figure 7 (and the discussion that follows) are
    not cumulative since some shops offered for sale more than one medicine
    and some offered for sale both protected and regulated species
    medicines.
        Of the shops surveyed in Toronto, 7 of 20 (35 percent) did not
    offer for sale any protected or regulated species medicines. Tiger and
    musk were the most common species medicines found in the 20 shops
    surveyed. Protected species medicines containing or claiming to contain
    tiger, leopard, and rhino were found in ten shops (50 percent). Rhino
    horn or tiger bone items were found in seven shops (35 percent). Two
    shops (10 percent) had tiger-bone plaster; one shop (I percent) claimed
    to have tiger-bone wine and no shops had raw rhino horn. Five shops (25
    percent) had other commercial medicines with rhino horn or tiger bone.
    One shop offered to sell five rhino or tiger medicines. Eight shops (40
    percent) offered regulated species medicines for sale. The average
    number of items per shop was less than one.
        In nine shops (45 percent), the sales clerks told the investigator
    that tiger bone is banned from sale. One clerk said that tiger bone
    plasters cannot be found anywhere in the world because tigers are fully
    protected animals. Another said that rhino horn is barred from sale and
    that antelope or other horn can be used instead; even if rhino horn
    could be found in the city, it would be too expensive. Still another
    clerk said that rhinos are class one protected animals and that anyone
    caught selling horn can get 15 years in jail. One clerk helpfully
    offered another tiger bone plaster as an alternative, and another
    suggested that tiger bone wine may be available for between C$25 and
    C$125, a bottle depending on the brand, but it is kept in a secret
    place because of the ban.
        None of the medicines had dates of manufacture and none of the
    packages were altered. Some brands were known from previous shops to
    have contained or claimed to contain tiger or rhino, but the packages
    examined did not list those ingredients. Interestingly, one of the
    medicines listed ``African tiger bone'' on the package. Because lion
    bone has been noted on medicine lists that formerly listed tiger bone,
    it is not certain if this was lion bone or the result of an effort to
    bypass prohibitions on ``Asian tiger bone.''
    Vancouver
        The Chinese-Canadian population in Vancouver, British Columbia, was
    the second largest in the two Canadian cities and fourth largest of all
    North American cities surveyed. Approximately 198,000 people represent
    about 33 percent of the Chinese-Canadian population (according to
    Statistics Canada figures for 1991). The 24 shops surveyed in
    Vancouver's Chinatown were on Main, Pender, Gore, Keefer, and Hasting
    streets.
        The Pacific and Yukon CWS region of Canada has adopted a policy of
    100 percent referral by customs officials to CWS for inspection of any
    shipment declared as containing East Asian medicines (Chalifour pers.
    comm. 1998). Careful inspection of these shipments by CWS follows. CWS
    regional staff have also been working closely with the importers of
    traditional East Asian medicine into the region to ensure that they are
    aware of WAPPRIITA rules. CWS staff in this region have occasionally
    gone into shops and seized CITES Appendix I items under WAPPRIITA
    prohibitions on sale. However, no prosecutions have ensued.
        A number of federal cooperative law enforcement efforts have
    occurred in Vancouver. Reportedly, more than 211,000 items whose
    ingredients contained or claimed to contain endangered species
    derivatives were seized at the port of Vancouver in 1995, compared to
    only 1,200 items seized in 1987 (Anon. 1996).
        On 28 June 1996, Canadian Customs inspectors and Canadian Wildlife
    Service (CWS) officers in Vancouver seized almost 20,000 items of
    illegally imported Asian medicines containing or claiming to contain
    parts or derivatives of endangered wildlife. The shipment, sent from
    Hong Kong, was destined for Canada's growing East Asian communities in
    Vancouver and Toronto (Anon. 1996).
        On 29 March 1997, officers of the Ministry of Environment, Land and
    Parks along with regional conservation officers assisted by the Royal
    Canadian Mounted Police, seized 21 bear gallbladders at the Vancouver
    International Airport from a man traveling from Toronto to Vancouver
    (Anon. 1997).
        On 11 April 1997, officers of the Ministry of Environment, Lands
    and Parks in Victoria, British Columbia, reported that charges had been
    filed against Chun Mau Wong for selling bear gallbladders between
    Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia, to an undercover
    officer on two occasions (Anon. 1997a). Although most of these cases
    have received local, national, and even international publicity, the
    only efforts to advise or educate Vancouver citizens about this problem
    are the CWS distribution of a joint CWS and WWF brochure on WAPPRIITA,
    meetings with importers of medicines, and visits to retail shops.
        The percentages shown in Figure 8 (and the discussion that follows)
    are not cumulative because shops offered for sale more than one
    medicine, and some offered for sale both protected and regulated
    species medicines.
        Of the shops surveyed in Vancouver, 6 of 24 (25 percent) did not
    offer to sell any protected or regulated species medicines. Musk,
    tiger, and rhino were the most common species medicines found in the 24
    surveyed shops. Protected species medicines were offered for sale in 15
    shops (63 percent), with rhino horn or tiger bone items offered for
    sale in 14 shops (58 percent). Three shops had tiger-bone plaster (13
    percent), and five had tiger-bone wine (21 percent). Raw rhino horn was
    offered for sale in one shop (4 percent). Twelve shops (50 percent) had
    only regulated species medicines. The average number of rhino and tiger
    items offered for sale in all shops surveyed was two.
        In 14 shops (58 percent), the sales clerks told the investigator
    that tiger bone, rhino horn, and musk were banned. One clerk told the
    investigator that rhino horn might be available in the city but that no
    one would sell to a stranger because someone had been arrested for
    selling musk or bear bile. Another clerk also indicated that rhino horn
    might be available. Still another indicated that musk was illegal, but
    was not certain why.
        None of the medicines had dates of manufacture. Two medicines had
    altered packaging on which the musk, tiger bone, and bear bile were
    covered by black ink. One medicine, ``Huguzhulfeng'' plaster, had tiger
    in its name but did not list tiger as an ingredient. Three medicines
    were known to have once had tiger bone as an ingredient, but it was no
    longer listed on the package. One medicine, ``Diedazhitonggao,''
    specifically indicated on its package that it ``excluded any part of
    tiger.''
                How Does North America Compare To Other Markets?
        Canada and the United States are not the only non-Asian countries
    that have an internal market for traditional medicines that contain or
    claim to contain protected species such as tiger and rhino. According
    to an analysis of Chinese CITES data by TRAFFIC International, 16 non-
    Asian countries--Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Denmark,
    France, Ghana, Italy, Mauritius, the Netherlands, Panama, the former
    Soviet Union, Togo, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States--
    were documented destinations for tiger products from China (Mulliken
    and Haywood 1994). But, as noted in this 1994 analysis, these medicines
    are found in markets worldwide.
    Australian and New Zealand Markets
        An investigation by TRAFFIC Oceania in 1995 (Callister and
    Bythewood 1995) revealed that Australia and New Zealand had small
    markets and legislative problems that deterred effective implementation
    of CITES and internal controls. TRAFFIC Oceania visited 144 shops in
    three cities in Australia and 30 shops in two cities in New Zealand.
    TRAFFIC found that 3 of 20 shops in Australia and 4 of 20 shops in New
    Zealand sold tiger medicines, compared to 9 of 20 in Canada and 8 of 20
    in the United States. (See Table 2.)

    Table 2. Comparison of the Availability in Five Countries of Manufactured Products Claiming to Contain Rhino and
                                               Tiger Parts or Derivatives
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Percentage of
                                       Number of Shops/                         Surveyed Shops       Percentage of
                 Country                Cities Surveyed     Survey Year(s)       Selling Tiger       Shops Selling
                                                                                   Products         Rhino Products
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Australia.......................  144 shops in 3      1995..............  14 percent........  3 percent
                                       cities.
    Canada..........................  44 shops in 2       1996-1997.........  45 percent........  18 percent
                                       cities.
    China...........................  280 shops in 7      1993-1995.........  3 percent.........  4 percent
                                       cities.
    New Zealand.....................  30 shops in 2       1995..............  20 percent........  0 percent
                                       cities.
    United States...................  66 shops in 5       1996-1997.........  41 percent........  14 percent
                                       cities.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Callister and Bythewood 1995, Mills 1997.

    The China Market
        In mid-1993, China prohibited the internal and external trade and
    manufacture of tiger and rhino medicines. Following that ban, TRAFFIC
    East Asia began a three-year survey to determine the continued
    availability of medicines and of raw rhino and tiger products in China.
    In total, 13 cities were surveyed in China, however, to better compare
    the survey results with the North American survey (see Table 3),
    TRAFFIC North America calculated the results using seven Chinese cities
    visited in 1995 (see Table 4).
        Results from China in 1996 showed that in these select seven
    cities, 54 of the 280 shops (19 percent) offered for sale rhino or
    tiger items. Eleven different types of rhino-or-tiger-containing
    commercial medicines were found that were produced by approximately 13
    manufacturers (see Table S). In the seven cities surveyed, 6 of 20
    shops sold tiger medicines.
        Based upon this information, TRAFFIC North America notes that the
    current availability of protected or regulated species medicines in
    these five western countries appears to be even greater than what was
    found by TRAFFIC East Asia in China in 1995. TRAFFIC East Asia found
    only a small residual trade of such medicines within China in the years
    since the complete prohibition on their sale, manufacture, and export.
    At the same time, however, TRAFFIC East Asia found that a few
    manufacturers were still willing to ship (and even manufacture)
    prohibited medicines to potential buyers outside China despite these
    prohibitions. The North American availability of rhino and tiger
    medicines manufactured in China suggests that there might be other
    manufacturers or exporters willing to break the law to export these
    medicines, or that stockpiles of these medicines remain both within or
    outside China.
        This speculation on illegal manufacture in China, illegal export
    from China, or stockpiles in other countries is further supported by
    the fact that TRAFFIC North America identified a total of 31 medicines
    from at least 29 Chinese manufacturers for sale in North America (see
    Table 6). If we compare these results to those mentioned above from
    China, more than twice as many medicines are found in the United States
    and Canada than those found in China, the manufacturing source of such
    medicines. The list of medicines sold in the United States and Canada
    was compared to a list previously compiled by TRAFFIC of the late 1980s
    through the early 1990s (Gaski and Johnson 1994) documented 73
    medicines containing or claiming to contain tiger parts. More
    information on the manufacturers and their stockpiles, if any, is
    needed.

    Table 3. Summary of Data Collected During the TRAFFIC North America Survey of Asian Pharmacies and Markets in Selected North American Cities, 1996-1997.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              San
                                                                     Atlanta    Los Angeles    New York    Francisco     Seattle      Toronto     Vancouver
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No. of Businesses surveyed...................................            6           17           12           19           12           20           24
    No. of businesses (%) with at least one RH/TB item [RH/TB        3 (50.0%)     1 (6.0%)   10 (83.0%)    8 (42.0%)    6 (50.0%)    7 (35.0%)   14 (58.0%)
     item--raw RH, TPB, TBW, or other commercial medicine
     containing TB, RH, or both].................................
    No. of businesses (%) with raw RH............................     0 (0.0%)     0 (0.0%)     0 (0.0%)     0 (0.0%)     0 (0.0%)     0 (0.0%)    1 (4.17%)
    No. of businesses (%) with TBP...............................    1 (16.7%)     1 (5.9%)    5 (41.7%)    2 (10.5%)     0 (0.0%)    2 (10.0%)    3 (12.5%)
    No. of businesses (%) with TBW...............................     0 (0.0%)     0 (0.0%)     0 (0.0%)     0 (0.0%)     0 (0.0%)     1 (5.0%)    5 (20.8%)
    No. of businesses (%) with other commercial medicines            3 (50.0%)     0 (0.0%)    9 (75.0%)    7 (36.8%)    6 (60.0%)    5 (25.0%)   11 (45.8%)
     containing TB, RH, or both..................................
    Average number (range) of RH/TB items per business [includes    2.33 (1-4)     1.00 (1)   2.70 (1-4)   2.00 (1-5)  5.17 (2-11)   2.50 (1-5)   2.71 (1-6)
     only businesses with at least one item].....................
    No. of businesses (%) with commercial medicines containing LB     0 (0.0%)    3 (18.0%)    2 (17.0%)     1 (5.0%)    3 (25.0%)    5 (25.0%)    4 (17.0%)
     [includes plasters and wines]...............................
    No. of businesses (%) with commercial medicines containing MK    5 (83.0%)    3 (18.0%)    6 (50.0%)    6 (32.0%)    6 (50.0%)    8 (40.0%)   12 (50.0%)
     [includes plasters].........................................
    No. of businesses (%) with commercial medicines containing BB     0 (0.0%)     0 (0.0%)    2 (17.0%)     0 (0.0%)    2 (17.0%)     1 (5.0%)   3 (13.0%)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Formula: RH = rhinoceros horn; TB = tiger bone; TBP = tigerbone plaster; TBW = tigerbone wine or tigerbone-papaya wine; LB = leopard bone; MK = musk; BB
      = bear bile

          Table 4. Summary of Data Collected During the TRAFFIC Network Survey of Businesses in Selected Cities in the People's Republic of China, 1996
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Beijing      Chengdu      Nanchang     Shanghai     Tianjin       Xi'an      Zhengzhou
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Number of businesses surveyed................................           49           53           33           25           35           50           35
    No. businesses (%) with at least one RH/TB item [RH/TB item-    11 (22.4%)     1 (1.9%)    6 (18.2%)     2 (8.0%)   23 (65.7%)     4 (8.0%)    7 (20.0%)
     raw RH, TBP, TBW, or other commercial medicine containing
     TB, RH, or both]............................................
    No. of businesses with raw RH or RHP.........................            0            1            2            0            1            2            4
    No. of businesses with TBP or TBW............................            0            0            4            0            2            0            1
    No. of businesses with other commercial medicines containing    11 (22.4%)     0 (0.0%)     0 (0.0%)     2 (8.0%)   22 (62.9%)     2 (4.0%)     2 (5.7%)
     TB, RH, or both.............................................
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Formula: RH = rhinoceros horn; RHP = rhinoceros horn powder; TB = tiger bone; TBP = tigerbone plaster; TBW = tigerbone wine or tigerbone-papaya wine

    Table 5. Commercial Medicines and Manufacturers Found During the TRAFFIC
    Network Survey of Businesses in Selected Cities in the People's Republic
                                 of China, 1996
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Name of medicine              Manufacturer            Contents
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Angongniuhuangwan............  Tianjin Darentang         RH
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Dahuoluodan..................  Beijing Tongrentang       TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Dahuoluodan..................  Beijing Tongrentang 2nd   RH, TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Dahuoluodan..................  Fushun 2nd Chinese        RH
                                    Medicine Pharmaceutical
                                    Factory.
    Hugujiu......................  Beijing Tongrentang       TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Huitianzaizaowan.............  Harbin 1st Chinese        TB, LB*
                                    Medicine Factory.
    Huitianzaizaowan.............  Harbin 2nd Chinese        RH, TB
                                    Medicine Factory.
    Huitianzaizaowan.............  Liaoning Benxi Chinese    RH, TB
                                    Medicine Factory.
    Huitianzaizaowan.............  Chengelun People's        RH, LB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Huitianzaizaowan.............  Heilongjiang Mudanjiang   RH, TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Huitianzaizaowan.............  Heilongjiang Mudanjiang   RH, TB
                                    Chinese Medicine Pharm.
                                    Factory.
    Jianbuhuqianvan..............  Tianjin Darentang         TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Jufangzhibaosan..............  Beijing Tongrentang       RH
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Jufangzhibaosan..............  Beijing Tongrentang       RH
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Niuhuangqingxinwan...........  Tianjin Darentang         RH, AH
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Rhino Horn Powder............  ???.....................  RH
    Tiger Bone Plaster...........  Hubei Suizhou Zutian      TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Tiger Bone Wine..............  Wuhan Jianmin             TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Tiger Bone Wine..............  Wuhan Fifth               TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Tiger Bone Wine..............  Wuhan Zhonglian           TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Tiger Bone Wine..............  Tianjin 2nd Chinese       TB
                                    Medicine Factory.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 6. Commercial Medicines and Manufacturers Found During the TRAFFIC
     North America Survey of Asian Pharmacies and Markets in Selected Cities
                           in North America, 1996-1997
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Name of Medicine              Manufacturer            Contents
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chinese Chufeng Toukuwan.....  China Nat'l Chemicals I   TB
                                    & E Corp., Kwangtung
                                    Branch.
    Dahuoluodan..................  Beijing Tongrentang       TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Dahuoluodan..................  Beijing Tongrentang       RH, TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Dahuoluodan..................  Foshan 1st                TB, RH
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Dahuoluodan..................  Guangzhou Chengliji       RH, LB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Dahuoluowan..................  Lanzhou Foci              TB, Musk, RH
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Duzhonghuguwan...............  Huabei Pharmaceutical     TB
                                    Factory.
    Duzhonghuguwan...............  Guangchang                TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory
                                    (Hong Kong).

    (To Chung Fu Quat Pills).....  (``Kwong Cheong Medicine
                                    Manufactory'').
    Duzhonghuguwan...............  Guiyang Chinese Medicine  TB
                                    Factory.
    Duzhonghuguwan...............  Guiyang Chinese Med.      TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Hugubeitongvan...............  Medicine No. 1            TB
                                    Manufactory of China
                                    Guangchow.
    (Tiger-bone Pain Relieving
     Pills).
    Hugujiu (Tiger Bone Wine)....  Beijing Tongrentang       TB
                                    Medical Wine Factory.
    Hugujiu (Tiger-bone Wine)....  Shandong ??               TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Hugumuguaiu (Tiger-bone        Guangxi Wuzhou Longshan   TB
     Papaya Wine).                  Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Hugumuguajiu (Tiger Bone-      Lung Shan Distillery,     TB
     Papaya Wine).                  Wuchow, China.
    Hugumuguajiu (Tiger-bone       Shanghai Chinese          TB
     Papaya Wine).                  Medicine Works.
    Jianbuhuqianwan..............  Beijing 5th               TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Jianbubuqianwan..............  Lanzhou Foci              TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Medicated Plasters of          ``A Product of Yunnan,    Musk, BGB, (TB
     Moschus, Fel Ursi, Os Tigris   China''.                  not listed
     and Yunnan Baiyao.                                       although names
                                                              says TB)
    Niuhuangquinxinwan...........  Beijing Tongrentang       RH
                                    Pharmaceutical Pactory.
    (Qiangli) Renshenzaizaowan...  Foshan Lianhe             TB, Musk, RH
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Qianglizhuifengtouguwan......  Guangzhou Lianhe          TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Rhinoceros Skin and Green      Guangdong (Lianhe?)       RH
     Turtle Pills.                  Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Shengronghugwan (Ginseng       Fusong Pharmaceutical     TB
     Antler Tiger-bone Pill).       Factory.
    Shenronghuguwan (``Shenyung    Fu Sung Pharmaceutical    TB
     Huku Wan''; also labelled      Works.
     ``Ginseng Antler Tiger-bone
     Pills'').
    Shenyung Huku Wan (Ginseng     Fusung Pharmaceutical     TB
     Antler Tiger-bone Pills).      Works.
    Shexiangchuifengtouguwan.....  Guangzhou Medicinal       Musk, TB
                                    Industry Company.
    Shexiangduzhonghuguwan         Sichuan Medicines and     ``Synthetic''
     (capsules).                    Health Products Company.  Musk,
                                                              ``Synthetic''
                                                              TB
    Shexianghugugao (Musk and      Shenyang Changqing        Musk, TB
     Tiger-bone Plaster).           Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Shexianghuguwan (Musk-Tiger    Chongqing Chinese         Musk, TB
     Bone Pills).                   Medicine Factory.
    Shexiangtianqihuguwan (Radix   Weimin Medicine           Musk, TB
     Caulophylli Pill).             Manufactory.
    Shexiangxiongdanzhuifengwan    Jilin Chinese Medicine    TB, Musk, BGB
     (Rheumatism Pill).             Manufactory.
    Shexiangzhuifentouguwan......  Guangzhou Chinese         Musk, TB
                                    Medicine No. 1 Pharm.
                                    Factory.
    Shihuyeguangwan..............  Shandon Jinan Reinim      RH
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Tianma Duzhonghuguwan........  China Nat'l Native        TB
                                    Produce and Animal By-
                                    Products.
    (Tianma Duzhon Tiger-bone      I & E Corp. Fukien        TB
     Pills).                        Branch, Chuanchow
                                    Office (Qianzhou,
                                    Fujian).
    Tianmahuguwan................  Chengdu 7th               TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Tianmahuguwan................  Chengdu Dongfeng          TB
                                    (possibly = 7th) Pharm.
                                    Factory.
    Special Strong Tianmahuguwan.  Qingdao Pharmaceutical    TB
                                    Factory.
    Tianqihuguwan................  Chengdu 7th               TB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Tianqihuguwan................  Weimein Medicine Factory  TB, Musk
    Tiger Bone Pills.............  Yat Chau Medicine         TB
                                    Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
                                    (HK).
    Tiger Bone Plaster...........  China Chongqing           TB Paste, Musk
                                    Traditional Medicine
                                    Factory.
    TBP..........................  Chongqing Traditional     Musk, TB
                                    Medicine Factory.
    TBP (Musk and Tiger-bone       5th Chengdu               Musk, TB
     Plaster).                      Pharmaceutical Factory.
    TBP..........................  Note: Simplified          Musk, TB
                                    packaging with no brand
                                    name or factory listed;
                                    trademark looks like
                                    that of ``Emeishan
                                    Brand'', therefore
                                    likely made by 5th
                                    Chengdu Pharm. Fact..
    Tsei Hung Chui Fung Touku Wan  Beijing Tongretang        Musk, TB, BGB
                                    Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Wulongerhujiu (Five-dragon     Guangxi Wuzhou Longshan   TB?
     Two-tiger Wine).               Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Xianghushefengshiwan (Bear     Shangdong ??              TB, BGB
     Tiger Snake Rheumatism         Pharmaceutical Factory.
     Pills).
    Yenshunzaizaowan               Foshan Lianhe             Musk, TB, RH
     (=Renshenzaizaowan).           Pharmaceutical Factory.
    Zhenzhuniuhuangxijiaojieduwan  Guangdon ?? Company.....  RH
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              what do we now know?
    1. Protected Species Medicines Are Readily Available In North America
        Protected species medicines--those containing or claiming to
    contain tiger, rhino, and leopard--continue to be widely and openly
    available on the North American market as seen in the graphic below.
        This is supported by the results that show that:

          a high percentage of shops (50 percent) offered to sell
    manufactured medicines listing rhino horn and/or tiger bone as
    ingredients were identified;
          these protected species medicines were offered for sale
    in all cities surveyed; and
          a large number and variety of brands of manufactured
    medicines were offered for sale.

        These survey results are especially relevant because they were
    obtained by an investigator of Chinese descent who was a total stranger
    to the clerks and shopkeepers surveyed. If a stranger could obtain
    these results--in a system based strongly on trust and long-standing
    personal relationships--one might conclude that many more items,
    possibly even raw tiger bone or rhino horn, might be available to
    trusted regular customers.
    2. Protected Species Medicines Are Available Because of Legal
            Inadequacies
        The protected species medicines found in the survey are available
    because legal inadequacies or loopholes allow these medicines to be
    legally sold since they cannot be proved to be illegally imported. For
    example, since tiger bone medicines cannot at this time be forensically
    proved to contain tiger bone, the illegal import of these medicines
    cannot be proved in a court of law.
        Prosecutors for both the Canadian and U.S. governments are required
    by federal law to show that the products do contain tiger bone. Because
    of this burden of proof requirement under both countries' federal laws
    and because most of these medicines are smuggled into both countries,
    these medicines are ``legally sold'' throughout the region since their
    illegality cannot be proved otherwise.
        The market flourishes because of the ``legal availability'' of
    these medicines and the fact that almost 10 percent of ethnic-Chinese
    surveyed by TRAFFIC in July 1997 use or have used tiger bone medicines.
    This market continues even though it has been illegal to commercially
    import tiger products into the United States since 1972.
        Therefore, of the 1.7 million Chinese-American population, at least
    153,000 have used tiger medicines at least once. Thus, at least 153,000
    individual packages of medicine that contain or claim to contain tiger
    were purchased or will be purchased by this small group of consumers in
    the United States. These numbers do not take into account other ethnic
    East Asian or even non-Asian users of these medicines. Herbal--and
    therefore traditional--packaged medicines have become popular with
    people of all ethnic background in Canada and the United States.
    3. North America Appears to Be a Significant Market for These Medicines
        The openness and effective ``legality'' of the offer for sale of
    these products in North America suggests and even promotes the idea
    that the United States and Canada are significant Western markets for
    protected species medicines. Virtually all (except one in Hong Kong) of
    the rhino horn and tiger bone items found in the North American survey
    were commercially manufactured in China. There is also a greater
    variety of these medicines in North America than in China--4 1 percent
    of the shops in North America offered these products for sale as
    compared to 19 percent in China.
        Overall, considerably more brands or types of manufactured
    medicines, made by more manufacturers, were offered for sale in North
    America in 1996-1997 than in China in 1996. Is the North American
    market encouraging the development of new products or sustaining a
    market for products that have been outlawed in China? The survey found
    that North America had 31 types of medicine compared to 11 types of
    medicine in China. Approximately 29 manufacturers were associated with
    the medicines offered for sale in North America, compared to
    approximately 13 manufacturers in China.
    4. Illegal Stockpiles of These Medicines May Exist
        The widespread availability and variety of manufactured medicines
    in North America three to four years after the Chinese ban went into
    effect suggests that commercial medicines claiming to contain rhino
    horn or tiger bone continue to be manufactured in or exported from
    China. This situation would clearly be a violation of Chinese law as
    well as U.S. and Canadian laws; therefore, it is important to document
    whether such manufacture and export is actually taking place. A second
    possibility for the continuing supply of these medicines is that
    another county is illegally reexporting stockpiled manufactured
    medicines that were imported at one time from China. Still another
    reason may be that one or more North American importers purchased and
    stockpiled these medicines as the Chinese ban went into effect and
    those stocks are a source of the trade.
        Determining the age of medicines identified in the survey is
    difficult because very few of the medicines surveyed had a manufacture
    date on the package, and those that did were dated September 1993. (The
    Chinese prohibition went into effect in mid-1993.) Illegal imports of
    these medicines have been documented in the past in a TRAFFIC analysis
    of U.S. imports of protected and regulated medicines (Gaski and Johnson
    1995), and such imports have been intercepted in law enforcement
    investigations.
    5. Public Outreach Must Be Initiated to Eliminate These Markets
        A lesson may be learned from the results of this survey. Los
    Angeles was the ``cleanest'' of all North American cities. In normal
    circumstances, the profile of Los Angeles would be very similar to that
    of San Francisco. Both are in California, both have large and historic
    Chinese-American populations, and both harbor a well-established and
    defined Chinatown. However, Los Angeles has been subjected to
    intensive, multi-year, cooperative law enforcement efforts by federal,
    state, and local law enforcement authorities. Subsequent court cases
    and sentences received extensive press coverage in the city and
    throughout the region, as well as in East Asia. During Hat time, the
    U.S. government also initiated a brief pilot project on public outreach
    on the use of traditional medicines that exploit endangered species.
                               what can be done?
    Action 1. Increase Regional Law Enforcement.
        Both Canada and the United States have comprehensive laws to
    implement most of the provisions of CITES and to strongly penalize and
    deter illegal trade. Both countries also have wildlife legislation--the
    U.S. Lacey Act and a provision in Canada's WAPPRIITA--that prohibit the
    import and interstate, interprovincial, or interterritorial commerce of
    animals taken in violation of the wildlife laws of any country, state,
    province, or territory. In addition, the combined force of law
    enforcement personnel in Canada and the United States focusing on
    wildlife trade issues exceeds the entire wildlife enforcement capacity
    of some continents. Therefore, although inadequacies exist in both
    countries' wildlife legislation that impede prosecution of illegal
    trade in endangered species medicines, these countries are clearly not
    doing enough on a nation-wide basis to stop illegal imports and
    eliminate markets and demand.
        In addition, a key issue for law enforcement agencies in North
    America is the ability to determine whether commercially available
    medicines actually contain the rhino horn or tiger bone listed as
    ingredients. Forensic testing has thus far failed to detect measurable
    quantities of rhino horn or tiger bone in any of the many medicines
    tested. Without a way to definitively prove that parts and derivatives
    of protected species are actually present in these medicines, the U.S.
    and Canadian governments appear reluctant to prosecute businesses that
    sell these medicines.
        Recommendation A: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
    Canadian Wildlife Service should develop national strategies to address
    the issue of illegal trade in medicines advertised as containing
    endangered species. These strategies should draw upon the expertise and
    knowledge of federal, state, provincial, and territorial wildlife and
    other agencies. They should also utilize the legal authority of other
    government agencies, such as health, food and drug, and customs
    agencies. These strategies should centralize intelligence and other
    information related to source countries and importation methods most
    likely to involve illegal trade in endangered species parts. Since
    Canada and the United States are major markets for illegal endangered
    species products, both countries have an obligation to CITES to devote
    additional resources to wildlife trade controls.
        Recommendation B: Individual states within the United States should
    consider adopting legislation that would prohibit the sale of medicines
    claiming to contain endangered species and their parts and products.
        Recommendation C: U.S. states and Canadian provinces and
    territories should adopt legislation to prohibit the sale of products
    whose labels list protected or regulated species, especially medicines
    that list tiger and rhino as ingredients.
        Recommendation D: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Clark R.
    Bavin National Forensics Laboratory, working with the Canadian Wildlife
    Service and other forensics scientists, should continue to promote the
    development of techniques (including the application of forensic
    science) for identifying parts and derivatives of endangered and
    protected species used in traditional medicines, and should assist
    other countries by sharing this expertise and helping to solicit other
    external expertise.
    Action 2. Strengthen Legislation to Control Internal Trade
        At the 1994 CITES meeting held in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, the
    parties to CITES specifically recommended that all countries interpret
    the term ``readily recognizable derivative'' as ``any specimen which
    appears from an accompanying document, the packing or a marking or
    label, or from any other circumstances, to be a part or derivative of
    an animal or plant of a species included in the appendices,'' unless
    otherwise exempted. This recommendation was reinforced at the 1997
    CITES meeting. As clearly illustrated by the results of the TRAFFIC
    survey, neither country has responded to this resolution or amended its
    legislation, regulations, or even national policy with regard to
    addressing this identification issue.
        The lack of detectable quantities does not necessarily mean that
    rhino horn or tiger bone was not used to manufacture the medicine.
    Because the Chinese government recognized this problem, China's 1993
    ban assumes that any commercial Chinese medicine listing rhino horn or
    tiger bone as an ingredient actually contains horn or bone. Most
    protected and regulated species medicines offered for sale in North
    American shops were manufactured in China.
        Recommendation E: The U.S. Congress should pass the Rhino and Tiger
    Product Labeling Act in either its House or Senate form. The Act would
    prohibit the import, export, and sale of products labeled to contain
    certain endangered species. Subsequent to passage of the Act, the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, with the assistance and support of other
    agencies, including U.S. Customs, U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
    and state agencies, should make a concerted effort to aggressively
    enforce this legislation by pursuing and prosecuting those who violate
    its prohibitions.
        Recommendation F: Canada should actively pursue the passage of a
    second regulation to WAPPRIITA or to non-wildlife legislation (such as
    that regulating customs or food labeling), prohibiting the import,
    export, and sale of products labeled to contain CITES Appendix I
    species. The Canadian Wildlife Service should work with other federal,
    provincial, and territorial agencies to enforce existing legislation,
    particularly on possession to sell, by aggressively prosecuting those
    who violate these prohibitions.
    Action 3. Identify and Inventory Stockpiles and Manufacturers.
        It is not a simple task to determine the dates of manufacture or of
    importation of commercial medicines. Whereas some of those medicines
    formerly displayed a production date on the box or ingredients list,
    very few of the commercial medicines seen in the current North American
    survey had manufacture dates (and all dates seen were before 29 May
    1993). The only way to verify an importation date is to be present when
    the items are actually imported (as a Customs or wildlife inspector
    might be).
        From the Chinese government's perspective, the only legal medicines
    now in the United States or Canada would have to come from stockpiles
    that existed before the ban, because the manufacture of these medicines
    has been illegal since May 1993. Whether such stockpiles actually exist
    is impossible to determine because no detailed inventories of
    manufacturers or importers in China or elsewhere are known to have been
    conducted at the time of the ban. Research done in 1995 by TRAFFIC East
    Asia (Mills 1997) suggests that some manufacturers were willing to
    export prohibited stockpiles to overseas buyers or even to manufacture
    prohibited medicines if specifically requested. The 1997 CITES tiger
    resolution specifically asks parties to consolidate and ensure adequate
    control of stocks of tiger parts and derivatives. China has made
    positive efforts to respond to CITES requests for such stockpile
    inventories in the past, and an immediate call for an inventory of any
    stockpiles by manufacturers or others would assist CITES law
    enforcement efforts throughout the world.
        Recommendation G: The United States and Canadian CITES authorities,
    with the assistance of the CITES Secretariat, should ask the Chinese
    government to confirm that the status and security of stockpiles of
    these products in China and Hong Kong. These authorities should also
    ask for the same confirmation from other CITES parties, such as
    Singapore, Malaysia, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and other countries that
    have exported similar manufactured medicines (made in China and
    elsewhere) to the United States and Canada. Both countries should also
    investigate the potential existence of such stockpiles within North
    America.
        Recommendation H: It is critical to determine if commercial
    medicines containing or claiming to contain rhino horn or tiger bone
    continue to be manufactured in China. This knowledge can best be
    obtained by the Chinese increasing their use of overt monitoring of the
    manufacturing industry, combined with undercover investigations.
    Action 4. Initiate Collaborative North American Public Outreach
            Efforts.
        TRAFFIC believes that the impact of law enforcement initiatives,
    the subsequent publicity stemming from them, and associated public
    outreach efforts have changed the patterns of sale and use of protected
    species medicines in Los Angeles, although there are no baseline data
    to support this conclusion. Undoubtedly, when local--or, even better--
    nationwide or regionwide law enforcement efforts work in concert with
    focused public outreach initiatives, then shop owners and consumers
    will learn that trade in these medicines constitutes a law enforcement
    violation and a conservation problem and people will no longer offer
    them for sale or purchase them. This conclusion is supported by the
    anecdotal information collected during the survey of sales clerks'
    knowledge of local law enforcement efforts.
        Recommendation I: Interested federal, state, provincial, and
    territorial government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
    traditional medicine communities and practitioners in North America
    should work together to initiate new outreach and education efforts in
    key consumer areas within the United States and Canada These efforts
    should focus on the following:
          create an awareness of the plight of endangered species;
          establish a causal link between the decline of endangered
    species and the use of TCM;
          highlight effective alternatives and sustainable
    substitutes to these medicines;
          ensure that the message is not pointed solely at TCM use,
    which only villainizes TCM users. Present a clear message that TCM is
    only one element in a larger problem of habitat loss, human
    encroachment, poaching, and other pressures on wildlife.
    Action 5. Increase U.S. Governmental Funding for Tiger Conservation and
            Trade Control.
        The United States is one of the richest nations on earth and can
    provide, under the U.S. Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act and other
    programs, funds to organizations and governments to undertake research
    projects related to rhino and tiger conservation. It should especially
    direct those funds to projects intended to stop the chronic and
    extremely detrimental illegal trade in endangered species.
        Recommendation J: The U.S. Congress should at least double the
    Finding appropriated under the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act as a
    response to the efforts of CITES parties to help tiger range states
    ``demonstrably reduce the illegal trade in tiger parts and derivatives
    by the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES'' (See
    appendix 1).
        Recommendation K: The United States should pro-actively encourage
    governments of tiger range and consuming countries to apply for this
    funding and also to provide support to pursue effective alternatives
    and sustainable substitutes for protected or endangered species
    medicines, especially with regard to tiger bone and rhino horn.
                                   references
        Anon. 1997. Understanding Canada's Wildlife Trade Law and How it
    Applies to Animals and Plants in Medicines. Informational Brochure.
    World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto, Canada; Environment Canada,
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Karuna Community Service.
        Anon. 1994. California Department of Fish and Game press release,
    February 1994; The Daily Sentinel, 25 June 1994.
        Anon. 1995. U.S. Attorney's Office news release, Central District
    of California; Associated Press, 4 April 1995.
        Anon. 1995a. U.S. Attorney's Office press release, Los Angeles,
    California; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Anon. 1995b. Anchorage Daily News, 25 September 1995.
        Anon. 1995c. pers. comm., 11 November 1997.
        Anon. 1995d. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service press release, 19
    October 1995.
        Anon. 1996. Agence France Presse [AFP], 28 June 1996.
        Anon. 1997. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, 4 April 1997
        Anon. 1997a. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, 11 April
    1997.
        Bensky, D. and A. Gamble. 1993. Chinese Herbal Medicine Materia
    Medica Eastland Press, Seattle, Washington, USA.
        Callister, D.J. and T. Bythewood. 1995. Of Tiger Treatments and
    Rhino Remedies: Trade in Endangered Species Medicines in Australia and
    New Zealand. TRAFFIC Oceania, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
        Chalifour, N. 1996. Canada's Role in the Tiger Trade:
    Recommendations for a Tiger Safe Nation. World Wildlife Fund-Canada,
    Toronto, Canada.
        Gaski, A.L. and K.A. Johnson. 1994. Prescription For Extinction:
    Endangered Species and Patented Oriental Medicinals in Trade. TRAFFIC
    USA, Washington, D.C.
        Leader-Williams, N. 1992. The World Trade in Rhino Horn: A Review.
    TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
        Mainka, S. 1998. Rhino Progress: The Response to CITES Resolution
    Cony: 9.14. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
        Mainka, S. 1997. Tiger Progress: The Response to CITES Resolution
    Conf. 9.13. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
        Mills, J.A., Ed. 1997. Rhinoceros Horn and Tiger Bone in China: An
    Investigation of Trade Since the 1993 Ban. TRAFFIC International,
    Cambridge, United Kingdom.
        Mills, J.A. 1993. Market Under Cover: The Rhinoceros Horn Trade in
    South Korea. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
        Mills, J.A. and P. Jackson. 1994. Killed For A Cure: A Review of
    Worldwide Trade in Tiger Bone. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, United
    Kingdom
        Mulliken, T. and M. Haywood. 1994. Recent data on trade in rhino
    and tiger products, 1988-1992. TRAFFIC Bulletin 14(3):99-106.
        Nowell, K., Chyi Wei-Lien and Pei Chia-Jai. 1991-1992. Horns of a
    Dilemma: The Market for Rhino Horn in Taiwan. TRAFFIC International,
    Cambridge, United Kingdom.
          Prepared Statement of Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice President,
    Communications and Government Affairs, The Humane Society of the United
                                     States
        I am Wayne Pacelle, senior vice president for Communications and
    Government Affairs for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS),
    this Nation's largest animal protection organization, with more than
    6.2 million members and constituents.
        Mr. Chairman, the bills under discussion today each focus on the
    need to stem the tide of illegal trade in wildlife. The bill relating
    to the disposal of stockpiles of parts and products of endangered and
    threatened animals demonstrates the enormous magnitude of the illegal
    wildlife trade in this country. The bills relating to the conservation
    of rhinos and tigers, and the trade in products made from them and
    other threatened and endangered species, are the latest in a series of
    domestic and international steps to stop the illegal trade in products
    of these animals, which have been driven to the brink of extinction by
    this trade. The bill relating to the bear parts trade seeks to stem the
    precipitous decline of Asian bear species, whose parts are traded
    globally; the bill also proactively seeks to protect America's bears
    from the same strong markets that have nearly wiped out Asian bear
    populations.
                        the bear protection act (s. 263)
        Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the millions of members and constituents
    of the HSUS and the 127 undersigned organizations, including
    organizations from every State represented by members of this
    committee, I wish to state our strong support for the Bear Protection
    Act.
        This anti-poaching legislation introduced by Senator Mitch
    McConnell is an effort to eliminate the incentive to kill bears
    illegally and profit by the sale of their internal organs, particularly
    the gallbladder and bile. S. 263 represents a thoughtful, pro-active
    approach to wildlife protection that will contribute to the long-term
    conservation of the world's remaining bear species.
        As the committee surely knows, the Bear Protection Act has a
    remarkable base of support in both the Senate and the House, reflected
    not only in sheer numbers, but also in the bipartisan nature of
    cosponsorship. In addition to lead sponsor Senator McConnell, 24
    Republicans and 29 Democrats have cosponsored the bill--a total of 54
    Senators representing a majority of the Senate. Specifically, six
    Republicans and seven Democrats, two-thirds of this committee, have
    cosponsored the bill. Companion legislation in the House introduced by
    Congressman John Porter (R-IL) has amassed 135 cosponsors thus far on a
    similar bipartisan basis.
        The Bear Protection Act creates sound national policy against the
    trade in bear gallbladders and bile. The absence of Federal legislation
    prohibiting trade in bear parts allows an interstate and international
    illegal trade to flourish. It is wrong for this Nation to allow
    poachers and smugglers to exploit the current inconsistencies in State
    laws and profit from the sale of bear parts. The Bear Protection Act
    will assist State and Federal wildlife enforcement efforts. If enacted,
    the legislation would:
         protect endangered Asian bears from international markets
    for their organs;
         protect American bears from being poached to supply
    foreign demand for their parts; and
         protect American bears from domestic markets in bear
    parts.
        The United States has an especially important role to play in bear
    conservation since it is both a bear range State and a Nation whose
    citizens unfortunately consume bear parts. Senator McConnell has wisely
    drafted a bill that focuses narrowly on a specific problem in global
    bear conservation: the spreading, highly lucrative trade in bear
    viscera such as the gallbladders and bile. The demand for bear parts
    and derivatives in traditional medicine and, increasingly, luxury
    cosmetic items, continues to put enormous pressure on endangered Asian
    bear populations. In an effort to supply this huge market, traders now
    are also targeting America's bear populations.
        Although it is difficult to accurately quantify levels of the trade
    in bear parts, especially since it is an illegal enterprise in most
    States, there is a clear indication that bear poaching and the trade in
    bear gallbladders and bile are widespread. In 1994, Christopher
    Servheen, representing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the IUCN/
    SSC Bear Specialist Group, noted ``There is a serious impact on global
    bear populations from the trade in bear parts'' (Proceedings of the
    International Symposium on the Trade of Bear Parts for Medicinal Use,
    Washington, 1994). He also noted in a 1995 statement that, ``As Asian
    bear populations decline and wild bear bile and other bear parts become
    more difficult to obtain, sources of bear parts outside Asia will be
    developed by traders and others willing to make significant profits.''
    Dr. Ed Espinoza, deputy director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Forensics Laboratory in Oregon contends, ``Right now the bear
    population is healthy. . . . But the possibility exists that, if we
    don't control the trade in bear parts, we could lose the entire
    population'' (The Idaho Statesman, September 17, 1995).
        The 1995 World Wildlife Fund annual report echoes these warnings:
    ``A recent TRAFFIC study reported that American black bear populations
    are targets of illegal traders in bear parts. The booming medicinal
    market for these parts, where a single bear gallbladder can be sold for
    as much as $11,000 in some Far Eastern markets, has already sent Asian
    bear populations into decline and is causing traders to turn
    increasingly to American black bears. A complex patchwork of State laws
    in the United States makes it almost impossible to regulate the
    trade.''
        All eight extant bear species are listed under the Appendices to
    the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
    Fauna and Flora (CITES). The spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus),
    Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus), sun bear (Helarctos malayanus),
    sloth bear (Melursus ursinus), giant panda (Ailuripoda melanoleuca) and
    some subspecies of brown bear (Ursus arctos) are listed on CITES
    Appendix I, thus prohibiting international commercial trade in their
    parts and products. Other species, including the polar bear (Ursus
    maritimus) and the American black bear (Ursus americanus), are listed
    on Appendix II which means some international trade in their parts and
    derivatives can occur, under very specific regulations.
        The primary reason for the 1992 CITES listing of the American black
    bear was the ``look-alike'' problem--it is impossible to visually
    distinguish the gallbladder of, for example, an endangered Asiatic
    black bear from an American black bear. The Trip Report from a December
    1997 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delegation that visited Korea,
    states, ``. . . according to the Service's National Forensics
    Laboratory, it is still technically impossible to determine the species
    of bear from a sample of gallbladder. Such purported results would not
    hold up in court.'' This creates a significant enforcement loophole
    which facilitates the illegal trade in bear parts and products. The
    Bear Protection Act would close this loophole and assist State and
    foreign bear conservation enforcement efforts.
                  state support and the need for a federal law
        That ``complex patchwork of State laws in the United States''
    addressing the bears parts trade, to which the WWF report referred, is
    a major factor complicating enforcement. Thirty-two States ban the
    commercialization of bear parts, nine States allow trade only of
    gallbladders taken from outside the State, seven States allow commerce
    regardless of origin, and two States without bear populations have no
    regulations at all. This current system allows poachers to kill bears
    (illegally) in one State where the sale of bear parts is prohibited,
    and to sell the parts ``legally'' in another State--or ship them out of
    the country--completely circumventing the first State's prohibition on
    sale of bear parts. State wildlife agencies and district attorneys'
    offices are hindered in investigating and prosecuting bear poaching and
    gallbladder trade cases by this State-to-State inconsistency.
        In 1995 and 1996, conservation organizations inquired of all 50
    State wildlife departments whether they considered the current
    patchwork of State laws regarding the trade in bear parts to be a
    problem and whether they would support the pending Federal legislation.
    Over 30 State wildlife agency representatives and/or wildlife law
    enforcement personnel responded that this legal disparity makes
    wildlife law enforcement difficult and endorsed a uniform legal
    framework to prohibit the trade in bear viscera.
        The responses were incorporated into a report in April 1996, by the
    HSUS entitled The American Bear Parts Trade: A State-by-State Analysis.
    Captain Dave Tyler, Division of Enforcement, Rhode Island Department of
    Environmental Management, for instance, replied that an interstate ban
    on bear viscera trade ``would help because it is hard if trade is legal
    in one State and illegal in another.'' James Timmerman, Jr. Ph.D.,
    Director of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
    concurred: ``The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources would
    certainly support national legislation that protects the American black
    bear from the gallbladder trade. A Federal law prohibiting the
    commercial sale, import and export of bear gallbladders would be most
    helpful in protecting the American bear population from this illegal
    activity. . . . I support this initiative and am very supportive of
    anything that can improve enforcement in all areas.''
        Even representatives in those States without existing State
    legislation to control the trade in bear parts acknowledge the problem
    of legal inconsistency. Ray Lyon, Enforcement Assistant Chief, Special
    Operations with Idaho Fish & Game noted in a 1995 letter, ``We realize
    that there is some illegal killing of bears promoted by our laws.'' In
    fact, a 1992 Alaska court case shows exactly how the current legal
    inconsistency makes wildlife enforcement difficult, if not impossible,
    and interferes with other States' efforts to manage their wildlife. An
    individual in Alaska, where State regulation 5 AAC 92.200 prohibits
    purchase of any part of a bear, was offered bear parts by a man in
    Idaho where commerce is legal. She agreed to buy them, sent payment,
    and was arrested when she went to the airport to collect her purchase.
    Although all of the Alaska resident's actions related to this unlawful
    purchase were committed within the State, the case was ultimately
    dismissed because the ``legal site'' of the purchase is not defined.
        The Alaska Attorney General's office concluded that this decision
    ``will lead to the inevitable result of encouraging individuals to
    unlawfully take bears in Alaska, take them outside to places like Idaho
    where the sale of bear parts is still legal, and sell them to
    purchasers in Alaska through out-of-state strawmen. This is the very
    kind of conduct the legislature and Board of Game intended to prevent.
    . . . This does not further the administration of justice.''
        This case in Alaska is not an isolated incident, although statewide
    investigations and prosecutions have varying levels of success.
    Additional bear poaching and gallbladder trading operations have been
    uncovered nationwide. Bears are being targeted and killed specifically
    for their parts and no additional, expensive, government-funded studies
    are necessary to see that this is a problem. The following examples
    provide illustration of bear poaching and gallbladder trade cases
    across the country:
         Investigations in California resulted in arrests in 1994
    and in February of this year. In these cases, individuals, including
    Korean-Americans, arranged illegal bear hunts and sale of bear parts
    both in the United States and South Korea.
         In Senator Lautenberg's home State the Star-Ledger
    newspaper reported in 1996 that ``wildlife officers found the carcass
    of a black bear in West Milford. It was missing its gallbladders, paws,
    tongue and teeth. . . .'' New Jersey Wildlife Law Enforcement deputy
    chief Greg Huljack noted, ``It doesn't happen often; but when it does
    it's one too many.''
         An article in The Idaho Statesman (September 17, 1995)
    quotes U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service special agent Paul Weyland:
    ``Bears are being poached just for their gall bladders . . . We even
    have intelligence of people poaching bears in other States and
    laundering them in Idaho.'' Weyland continues: ``Poaching is
    widespread, there's no question. . . . Idaho Fish and Game biologists
    are wondering what's happening to our bears. I can tell you what's
    happening to them: They're being poached.''
         In Utah, State Division of Wildlife Resources agents
    learned of a Salt Lake man who in 1996 was purchasing bear galls and
    ``moving them to South Korea.'' According to The Salt Lake Tribune
    (January 28,1998) he allegedly told agents, ``In my mind I won't get
    caught.'' In a separate, yet unsolved case, State DWR investigator
    William Woody found two bears in Moab in 1997 with only the paws and
    galls removed.
        Passage of the BPA will create a uniform legal framework that
    closes the loophole of disparate State laws, thereby contributing to a
    reduction in the number of bears poached globally to supply the trade,
    and facilitating the wildlife enforcement efforts of dedicated State
    fish and game personnel.
       the bear protection act would have a positive international impact
        Of course, the illegal bear parts trade is a global problem with
    the most serious potential impact facing endangered bear populations
    outside the United States. The confusion caused by, and easy
    circumvention of, State laws, provide cover for continued illegal
    commerce in the gallbladders of Asian bears whose populations have
    nearly disappeared. The enforcement complications of the legal status
    quo also allow traders outside the United States to sell endangered
    bear parts under the guise that they are from legally taken North
    American bears. By prohibiting the import and export of bear parts and
    derivatives, Senator McConnell's legislation will help conserve these
    endangered Asian bear populations.
        For example, Mr. Sang Do Lee, Director and Senior Prosecutor with
    the South Korean Environmental Crime Division, told a U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service delegation that prosecutors ``assume that the bear
    galls [entering the Republic of Korea] from the United States come from
    legally hunted bears.'' Since 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    has issued 19 permits for export of bear gallbladders and bile. Only 1
    permit (for a single gallbladder to Japan) was not for forensic
    analysis, scientific research, or return of parts used as evidence in
    wildlife cases. The FWS 1997 Korea Trip report adds: ``Mr. Lee wishes
    the U.S. Government would put tougher controls on smuggling out of the
    United States. . . . Lee knows of no other species where there is an
    illegal trade problem comparable to that of bear gall; bear gall is
    small, profitable, and easy to smuggle.''
        Enactment of the Bear Protection Act will prevent those attempting
    to sell endangered Asian bear parts in other countries such as China,
    Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and elsewhere from falsely claiming they are
    from legally taken American bears. The fact that no gallbladders, bile,
    or derivatives will be able to leave the United States legally will
    facilitate the successful prosecution of such individuals.
        Passage will also send a strong message to poachers and profiteers
    that the United States intends to continue its leadership role in
    global species conservation, including our international obligations
    under CITES. At the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties last
    summer in Zimbabwe, the United States co-authored a Resolution on
    ``Conservation of and Trade in Bears.'' The Resolution, passed
    unanimously, begins by:

              ``NOTING that the continued illegal trade in parts and
            derivatives of bear species undermines the effectiveness of the
            Convention and that if CITES Parties and States non-party do
            not take action to eliminate such trade, poaching may cause
            declines of wild bears that could lead to the extirpation of
            certain populations or even species.''

        The resolution then:

              ``URGES all Parties, particularly bear range and consuming
            countries, to take immediate action in order to demonstrably
            reduce the illegal trade in bear parts and derivatives by the
            11th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, by: a)
            confirming, adopting or improving their national legislation to
            control the import and export of bear parts and derivatives,
            ensuring that the penalties for violations are sufficient to
            deter illegal trade.''

        The Bear Protection Act is national legislation that meets this
    international goal.
        The Bear Protection Act has severe impacts only for poachers and
    smugglers. It will not affect a State's ability to decide whether bear
    hunting can occur within the State, how long the hunt season can last,
    what the bag limit for the season will be, or by what methods bear
    hunting can take place. Nothing in the bill compromises a lawful
    hunter's ability to kill bears in accordance with these State
    regulations. In fact, of the 27 States that have bear hunting seasons,
    over two-thirds of them, 19 States, also ban bear gallbladder
    commercialization with no conflict.
        Nor should it hinder those who practice traditional medicine.
    According to both the EarthCare Society and Association of Chinese
    Medicine (two prominent Hong-Kong non-governmental organizations),
    there are at least 54 herbal alternatives to bear bile in its various
    medicinal applications. There are also synthetic alternative remedies.
    Word Fei-Cheung, Assistant Manager of the London-based Institute of
    Chinese Medicine told the CITES Standing Committee meeting in Rome in
    1996, ``We are as aware as anybody else of the threat to endangered
    species caused by the unscrupulous people who trade in the products of
    species such as the tiger, the bear and the rhinoceros. Indeed, we
    condemn these practices just as strong as the international
    conservation community . . . It is vital that the trade in these
    products is stopped forever, if we are to save these species.''
        The 105th Congress has an historic opportunity to enact legislation
    that will contribute to ensuring a stable future for these species
    across the globe. Anyone who is strongly opposed to the illegal
    poaching of bears should support S. 263. The world sadly watched for
    decades as the trade in rhino horn and tiger bone, along with habitat
    destruction, nearly wiped out these species throughout their range.
    Now, bear habitat is being destroyed and smugglers are trading in their
    gallbladders. There is no reason for the world's bears to risk a
    similar fate as rhinos and tigers. There is no reason to wait until all
    eight species are in complete peril to ban the commercialization of
    bear viscera.
        the fish and wildlife revenue enhancement act of 1998 (s. 2094)
        The HSUS strongly supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
    Division of Law Enforcement and regularly asks Congress to appropriate
    more funds toward the Division's activities. The HSUS supports the
    mission of the National Wildlife Property Repository to include
    forfeited and abandoned wildlife parts and products as part of a
    wildlife trade education kit distributed to museums, schools and other
    organizations. We also support the mission of the National Eagle
    Repository to distribute eagle carcasses to Native Americans for
    religious and ceremonial purposes.
        We commend Senator Allard for seeking ways by which to enhance the
    flow of funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Law
    Enforcement. However, The HSUS has the following concerns about the
    proposed amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act (S. 2094):
         The HSUS does not support the U.S. Government engaging in
    the trade in wildlife parts and products. The Fish and Wildlife
    Improvement Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior or the
    Secretary of Commerce to dispose of abandoned and forfeited fish and
    wildlife ``in such a manner as he deems appropriate (including, but not
    limited to, loan, gift, sale, or destruction).'' Sale is only one
    option that should be considered and it is an option that the HSUS does
    not support. The Service should limit its role to regulating the trade
    in wildlife, rather than promoting or engaging in trade as a supplier.
    One reason the Repository has never sold forfeited or abandoned fish or
    wildlife is that the Repository would not have benefited from such a
    sale. S. 2094 would allow the Repository to benefit from the sale and,
    if passed, S. 2094 would encourage the Secretaries of Interior and
    Commerce to favor sale instead of destruction or other methods of
    disposition preferred by the HSUS. Since the HSUS opposes the sale of
    forfeited and abandoned wildlife by the Service, we also oppose S. 2094
    because it would encourage such sale.
         The precedent-setting sale of 200,000 wildlife parts and
    products at auction may generate considerable press attention that
    would seriously undermine the Repository's efforts to educate the
    public about the harm caused by the wildlife trade. Most members of the
    American public do not distinguish between luxury products made from
    endangered, threatened or CITES Appendix I species and luxury products
    made from other wildlife. Certainly, to the HSUS' six million members
    and constituents, the inhumane treatment suffered by animals killed to
    supply the wildlife parts and products trade is the same regardless of
    the conservation status of the species. For example, although kangaroos
    are not protected under CITES or the Endangered Species Act, five
    million are killed in cruel ways each year to supply the international
    trade in kangaroo skin, which is made into shoes, luggage, belts,
    wallets and gloves. Many Americans are sure to be appalled by the
    Service's promotion of and participation in the trade in such items. In
    contrast, the educational message that could be generated by a public
    event involving the 200,000 sellable items plus the old and
    deteriorating items made from endangered, threatened, and Appendix I
    species would be very meaningful. Kenya and Nepal have made headlines
    in newspapers around the world by publicly burning such items.
         There are other ways of meeting the financial needs of the
    Repository without the Service engaging in the wildlife trade business.
    The Repository has stated that it would use the proceeds from the sale
    to send out more wildlife trade education kits, more eagles, and to
    maintain items in the Repository. In this regard, the HSUS was
    surprised to discover that the Service pays shipping and handling costs
    for the educational kits and eagles. Under these circumstances, it is
    no wonder that these ``free'' services generate more requests than the
    Repository can fill. The HSUS supports a ``users pay'' approach toward
    distribution of the education kits: those requesting the educational
    kits should pay the $50 shipping and handling charge. This measure,
    which could be adopted administratively, would save the Service $20,000
    or more per year. Second, the Repository has stored far more items than
    are required for its educational outreach program, at considerable
    expense. According to information prepared by the Repository, just over
    7000 items were used for education kits between July 1995 and December
    1997, yet the Repository stored and maintained 450,000 items. The cost
    of maintaining 440,000 items that the Repository will never use
    represents a considerable waste of money and staff time that could be
    avoided in the future by cutting back significantly on the number of
    items stored in the Repository.
        Rather than pursue this legislation, the HSUS urges the Repository
    to adopt a ``users pay'' approach to the distribution of the education
    kits, to cut back significantly on the number of items stored in the
    Repository, and to hold a public event to destroy all surplus items in
    order to educate the public about the harm caused by the wildlife
    trade.
        That said, with the legislation expected to advance, we suggest
    that the following changes to S. 2094 would improve the bill
    considerably:
         The bill should explicitly state that none of the items
    sold will be of species listed as endangered or threatened under the
    Endangered Species Act, on Appendix I of CITES, or protected by the
    Marine Mammal Protection Act.
         The bill should explicitly state that none of the items
    sold will be on Appendix II of CITES unless they were accompanied by a
    legitimate CITES export permit from the country of origin and that none
    of the items sold will be on Appendix III of CITES unless they were
    accompanied by a legitimate CITES export permit or a ``certificate of
    origin.''
        Explanation: When species listed on CITES Appendix II are imported
    without legitimate CITES export permits from the country of origin it
    means that the State of export has not verified that the export is in
    conformance with CITES Article IV, that is: (1) it means that the
    export of the wildlife could have been detrimental to the survival of
    the species; and (2) it means that the specimen could have been
    obtained in contravention of the laws of that State for the protection
    of fauna and flora. The Service should not promote or engage in the
    sale of such wildlife specimens, which could be detrimental to wild
    populations of the species concerned and which could undermine wildlife
    protection laws of other countries.
        When specimens of a species listed on CITES Appendix III are
    imported without a legitimate CITES export permit or ``certificate of
    origin,'' it means that the State of export has not verified that the
    export is in conformance with CITES Article V, that is, it means that
    the export of the wildlife could have been in contravention of the laws
    of that State for the protection of wild fauna and flora.
         The bill should explicitly state that none of the items
    sold will be species that were obtained in contravention of the laws of
    the exporting State for the protection of fauna and flora.
        Explanation: The export of a species not listed on the CITES
    Appendices or the Endangered Species Act (such as kangaroos and most
    reptiles) is often nonetheless regulated by national conservation laws
    of the exporting State; these regulations are often designed to ensure
    that export is not detrimental the survival of the species concerned.
    Exports conducted in accordance with such laws are often accompanied by
    an export permit from the country of origin. The Service should not
    promote or engage in wildlife trade that is harmful to wildlife
    populations or that undermines the wildlife protection laws of other
    countries.
    the rhinoceros and tiger conservation reauthorization act of 1998 (h.r.
                                     3113)
        The HSUS supports reauthorization of the Rhinoceros and Tiger
    Conservation Act which directs funds toward valuable in-situ rhino and
    tiger conservation projects. The HSUS recommends that Congress
    appropriate $1 million for the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund
    in FY99.
        the rhino and tiger product labeling acts (s. 361 and h.r. 2807)
        The HSUS wishes to thank Senator Jeffords for his leadership on
    this effort to enact legislation that would prohibit the import and
    export of any product labeled as containing endangered species or
    species listed on CITES Appendix I. One needs only to walk into an
    Asian market in any large city in the United States to view the many
    products offered for sale that claim to contain such species. The HSUS
    is often asked by our members and constituents how such items can be
    offered for sale in the United States. The response is, unfortunately,
    that the burden of proof that the items actually contain these species
    rests on the over-worked and underfunded U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    Law Enforcement Division. And furthermore that, even when examined by
    forensic experts, it is often difficult to detect the species in these
    products because they are present in such minute quantities.
        S. 361 would amend the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in order to
    achieve the aforementioned goals. In contrast, H.R. 2807 has a narrower
    focus and would not amend the ESA; instead, it would amend the Rhino
    and Tiger Conservation Act to prohibit the import, export and sale of
    any product labeled as containing any substance derived from any
    species of rhinoceros or tiger.
        The HSUS supports the intent of both bills. S. 361 is the ideal
    approach because it addresses trade in all endangered and CITES
    Appendix I species, not just rhinos and tigers as does H.R. 2807.
    However, H.R. 2807 is also appealing because it would prohibit sale of
    products claiming to contain these species (it is far easier for
    enforcement officers to observe these products being offered for sale
    than to observe them being imported or exported); S. 361 does not
    address sale. In conclusion, the HSUS recommends that the committee to
    work with Senator Jeffords and Congressmen Saxton and Miller to ensure
    enactment of a Labeling Law by the end of this legislative year.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this
    opportunity to share our views about these bills.
     organizations that support hsus' testimony on the bear protection act
        Action for Animals Network (VA)
        Adopt a Pet/Save a Life (AL)
        Alliance for the Wild Rockies (ID)
        American Humane Association (CO)
        American Lands
        American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
        American Wildlands (MT)
        Animal Allies (NH)
        Animal Allies (VA)
        Animal Care and Welfare/SPCA (PA)
        Animal Protection Institute (CA)
        Animal Protective Association of Missouri (MO)
        Animal Rights America (NJ)
        Animal Rights Foundation of Florida (FL)
        Animal Rights International (NY)
        The Animal Shelter (AL)
        Animals Asia Foundation (Hong Kong)
        Ardmore Animal Care, Inc. (OK)
        The Ark Trust (CA)
        Arkansans for Animals, Inc. (AR)
        Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (CA)
        Beauty Without Cruelty (NY)
        Boulder-White Clouds Council (ID)
        Canyon County Animal Shelter (ID)
        Carson/Eagle Valley Humane Society (NV)
        Cayuga County SPCA (NY)
        Chatauga County SPCA (NY)
        Chilton County Humane Society (AL)
        Closter Animal Welfare Society (NJ)
        Committee for Idaho's High Desert (ID)
        Committee for Rational Predator Management (ID)
        Cumberland Animal Control (RI)
        Defenders of Animals Inc. (CT)
        Defenders of Wildlife
        Deutsches Tierhilfswerk (Germany)
        Doris Day Animal League
        Dutchess County SPCA (NY)
        Earth Island Institute (CA)
        Earthtrust
        The Ecology Center (MT)
        Environmental Advocates (NY)
        Environmental Investigation Agency
        Europaisches Tierhilfswerk
        Farm Sanctuary (NY)
        Franklin County Humane Society (MO)
        Franklin County Humane Society (FL)
        Free The Bears Fund, Inc. (Australia)
        The Foundation for Animal Protection, Inc. (CT)
        Friends of Animals (CT)
        Friends of the Bitterroot (MT)
        Friends of the West (ID)
        Friends for Animal Welfare of Randolph County, Inc. (AL)
        Friends of the Wild Swan (MT)
        Fund For Animals
        Gallatin Valley Humane Society (MT)
        Global Survival Network
        Greater Yellowstone Coalition (ID)
        Greenpeace Foundation (HI)
        Hells Canyon Preservation Council (OR)
        Humane Farming Association (CA)
        Humane Federation of Wyoming (WY)
        Humane Society International
        Humane Society of Central Oregon/SPCA (OR)
        Humane Society of Collier County (FL)
        Humane Society of Etowach County (AL)
        Humane Society of Fairfax County (VA)
        Humane Society of North Pinellas (FL)
        Humane Society of the Palouse, Inc. (ID)
        Humane Society of Tampa Bay, Inc
        Hunterdon County SPCA, Inc. (NJ)
        I CARE (FL)
        Idaho Animal Advocates (ID)
        Idaho Coalition United For Bears (ID)
        Idaho Conservation League (ID)
        Idaho Sportsmen for Fair Hunting (ID)
        IdahoWatersheds Project (ID)
        International Primate Protection League
        Kootenai Environmental Alliance (ID)
        Lands Council (WA)
        Last Chance for Animals
        Laurel Animal Welfare League (MT)
        Marion County Humane Society (FL)
        Monmouth County SPCA (NJ)
        Montana Ecosystem Defense Council (MT)
        Montana Ecosystem Defense Council (MT)
        Montgomery County Humane Society (AL)
        National Humane Education Society (VA)
        New Hampshire Animal Rights League (NH)
        New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance (NJ)
        New Jersey Coalition for Animals (NJ)
        North American Wolf Association
        Northeastern Oklahoma Animal Helpers (OK)
        Northern Rockies Preservation Project (ID)
        Oklahoma SPCA (OK)
        Pacific Environment and Resources Center
        Performing Animal Welfare Society (CA)
        Pet Partners of Victor Valley (CA)
        Ponca City Humane Society (OK)
        Predator Defense Institute (OR)
        Predator Project (MT)
        Putnam County Humane Society (FL)
        Rancho Coastal Humane Society (CA)
        Recognition of Animal Rights (NY)
        Rocky Mountain Animal Defense (CO)
        Rhode Island Animal Rights Coalition (RI)
        Safe Haven Humane Society (OR)
        Sawtooth Wildlife Council (ID)
        Shambala Preserve (CA)
        Shawnee Animal Shelter (OK)
        Society for Animal Protective Legislation
        South Lake Animal League (FL)
        SPCA Josephine County (OR)
        Swan View Coalition (MT)
        T-Town People for Animal Welfare and Safety (AL)
        Urban Wildlife Crisis Center (CT)
        Walker County Humane Society (AL)
        Washington Humane Society (DC)
        Wayne County Humane Society (NY)
        West Orange Animal Welfare League, Inc. (NJ)
        West Volusia Humane Society (FL)
        Wild Wildemess (OR)
        Wildcare Foundation (OK)
        Wildlife Watch (NY)
        Wiregrass Humane Society (AL)
        Wise County Humane Society (VA)
        World Society for the Protection of Animals (MA)
        Wyoming Advocates for Animals (WY)
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Kristin L. Vehrs, Deputy Director, American Zoo
                            and Aquarium Association
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: My name is Kristin
    Vehrs. I am the deputy director of the American Zoo and Aquarium
    Association (AZA), and director of the Government Affairs Department. I
    have over 19 years of experience working for the public display
    community.
        The AZA is a professional organization representing 184 accredited
    zoological parks, aquariums, oceanariums, and wild animal parks in
    North America. The majority of our institutional members are located in
    the United States. In addition, AZA represents 4800 individuals, most
    of whom are employed by our zoo and aquarium members. In 1997, over 122
    million people visited AZA member zoos and aquariums--more than those
    who attended professional baseball, basketball, football and hockey
    games combined.
        The AZA appreciates the opportunity to testify before the committee
    on four bills: S. 2094, the Fish and Wildlife Revenue Enhancement Act
    of 1998; S. 361, the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act; H.R. 3113,
    the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Reauthorization Act; and S. 263,
    Bear Protection Act.
        I would like to thank this committee for its leadership and the
    concern it has shown for the conservation of endangered and threatened
    species, in particular African and Asian elephants, tigers and rhinos.
    I especially thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kempthorne, and other members
    of the committee for approving the reauthorization of the African
    Elephant Conservation Act in June, and the Asian Elephant Conservation
    Act last fall.
         s. 2094, the fish and wildlife revenue enhancement act of 1998
        AZA understands that S. 2094 does not change any FWS authority
    related to the current practices of the National Wildlife Property
    Repository--to dispose of appropriate products through ``loan, gift,
    sale or destruction.'' S. 2094 would allow the FWS to retain all
    proceeds from already-authorized and future sales of eligible wildlife
    materials it obtains in the course of implementing existing laws for
    the costs of handling and disposing of the materials (e.g. shipping,
    storage, appraisals, auction expenses), as well as for other already-
    authorized purposes such as processing and shipping eagle feathers to
    Native Americans for religious purposes. Currently, FWS may use
    proceeds from sales of wildlife items for rewards and for some storage
    costs, but not for defraying the costs of the sales themselves.
        While AZA has not formally endorsed S. 2094, our organization and
    our membership strongly support the continued availability of fish-and
    wildlife-related items from the Repository for educational programs.
    The AZA, FWS, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation, and Samsonite have a cooperative educational effort
    entitled Suitcase for Survival. It is an extremely popular educational
    tool for our member zoos and aquariums. Since its inception in 1991,
    the Suitcase for Survival Program has reached millions of school
    children throughout North America, and, as of 1997, there were 187
    suitcases in circulation with a long waiting list for more suitcases.
        ``Suitcase for Survival'' is designed to teach school children how
    the illegal trade in endangered animal products has contributed to
    bringing many species close to the edge of extinction. AZA-accredited
    zoos and aquariums loan the suitcases, packed with confiscated wildlife
    products and educational materials, to teachers who have completed a
    special training course. This program gives AZA, its members, and
    schools throughout the country the opportunity to teach a whole new
    generation about the choices they make, and the effects their choices
    have on the world around them. We want them to understand that their
    consumer decisions give them the power to impact the future of an
    entire species.
        The AZA believes it is very important that FWS continue to make
    these items available to museums, zoos, and schools for scientific and
    educational purposes.
                s. 361, the rhino and tiger product labeling act
        As this committee is well aware, the situation facing all species
    of tigers and rhinos in the wild has reached crisis levels. Since the
    1940's, three tiger subspecies--the Caspian, Bali, and Javan--have
    become extinct, and the South China tiger is now among the most highly
    endangered mammals on earth. Ninety-five percent of the tiger
    population has disappeared since the beginning of the 20th century. At
    that time, an estimated 100,000 tigers roamed India, Indochina, and
    other parts of Asia. Today, fewer than 7,000 tigers are left in the
    wild, and those numbers continue to drop. While pressure from an
    expanding human population and the development of natural resources to
    supply booming economies have attributed to a decline in worldwide
    tiger populations, poaching has clearly taken center stage since the
    1980's as the primary reason for the decline of these magnificent
    animals.
        According to Joshua Ginsberg of the Bronx Zoo/Wildlife Conservation
    Society, the collapse of the Soviet Union opened the illegal market for
    the Siberian tiger which, combined with an improved standard of living
    for millions of Asian consumers, has increased the demand for expensive
    tiger products. However, recognizing the problem and solving it are two
    very different things, as many of my colleagues have come to realize.
    In the past decade alone, one-quarter of the world's wild tiger
    population may have been killed to supply the international black
    market for tiger parts, despite a 20-year ban under the Convention on
    International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
    (CITES).
        The situation facing the three Asian and two African rhino species
    is also very serious. Populations were abundant and rather widely
    distributed in Asia through the middle of the 19th century. Today,
    fewer than 500 Sumatran rhinos and 100 Java rhinos remain in the wild.
    In Africa, black rhino populations have declined by 96 percent over the
    past two decades due to poaching for the trade in traditional medicines
    and dagger handles. Approximately 13,000 rhinoceros of all species are
    left in the wild, and these numbers are far from stable. Conservation
    biologists believe a population of at least 2,000-3,000 of each species
    is necessary for long-term viability. Most rhino species are far below
    this viability level. While poaching for the horn is the major threat
    for all five species, habitat degradation is also a significant threat
    for the Asian species due to unsustainable exploitation of timber and
    conversion of land for agriculture and other human uses.
        Stopping the demand for rhinoceros horn and tiger parts in light of
    1000 years of proven traditional Asian medicinal practices, and a
    strong cultural affinity for tiger bone and rhino horn, is extremely
    difficult. For far too long, the United States has allowed a weakness
    in current trade controls that makes it relatively easy to sell rhino
    and tiger products in the United States.
        The AZA strongly believes solving this serious problem requires a
    two-pronged attack. We would like a bill to be passed to prohibit the
    import into or export from the United States of any product labeled as
    or actually containing any species of tiger or rhinoceros. While such a
    bill would not affect the market within Asia, it would stop the
    significant importation of rhino and tiger products into the United
    States. According to recent reports by the World Wildlife Fund and the
    Wildlife Conservation Society, more than 50 percent of all retail
    stores in North America Chinatowns continue to sell illegal endangered
    species products despite the twenty-year ban. This approach also would
    eliminate the expensive and time-consuming laboratory testing necessary
    to determine if a confiscated product contains ingredients originating
    from rhinos or tigers.
        AZA believes a Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Bill will reinforce
    the historical role the United States has played in combating the
    illegal trade of animals and animal parts. Combining such a bill with
    the tools available in the Endangered Species Act, the Lacey Act, and
    the actions the United States took against China and Taiwan in 1994
    under the Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen's Protective Act for
    engaging in trade of tiger parts and rhino horn will tighten the grip
    around the worldwide illegal trade of rhinoceros horn and tiger parts.
        Turning to the specific bills before the committee, we would like
    to see a new version combining the preferable parts of both bills.
    Although we inherently prefer the broader approach taken by S. 361 to
    prohibit the importation of any product labeled as containing any
    species of fish or wildlife listed in Appendix I of CITES, we
    understand that the narrower language contained in H.R. 2807 is the
    more saleable for now. Since there are specific problems that can be
    cited with importation of tiger and rhino parts, we can support the
    narrower language.
        We believe the best vehicle for a Rhino and Tiger product Labeling
    Act is to amend the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act as is proposed in
    H.R. 2807.
        Finally, regarding the penalties proposed in H.R. 2807, AZA
    realizes that some members of the committee are concerned the
    enforcement language is too extreme, in particular, authorizing seizure
    of equipment, vessels, vehicles, etc. The AZA would be willing to work
    with you and the committee to resolve this issue.
        Mr. Chairman, AZA believes it is critical that a bill move forward
    to the Senate floor this session. The World Wildlife Fund/Wildlife
    Conservation Society document referenced above clearly illustrates that
    Congress needs to give FWS the tools necessary to prevent further
    illegal products from entering this country.
        I'd like to outline some of the activities AZA members undertake in
    educating the public about the harmful effects of purchasing rhino and
    tiger products. On a daily basis, our members educate millions of
    visitors about the devastating effects of development on the critical
    habitat for these two highly endangered species, and the long-term
    consequences of purchasing products that claim to contain rhino or
    tiger parts. Educating the public about its individual actions is an
    essential part of stopping the existing illegal trade, and of keeping
    tigers and rhinoceros from going the way of the Dodo bird.
        Last year, AZA unveiled a new traveling exhibit designed to promote
    the survival of the tiger. The AZA ``Save The Tiger Traveling Exhibit:
    Tigers in Crisis'' is designed to educate people about tigers, the
    problems they face as an endangered species, and the efforts zoos and
    other organizations are making to conserve them. Funded by the Exxon
    Save the Tiger Fund Program of the National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation, the display consists of five freestanding kiosks attached
    to dramatic life-size tiger cut-outs. Highlighted with magnificent
    photography and hands-on interactive elements, each kiosk tells a
    different chapter in the life story of tigers, relates what's being
    done to help them, and offers the public opportunities to get involved
    in tiger conservation. Between January 1998 and September 2000, the
    exhibit will have visited nine AZA zoos across the country, allowing
    millions of visitors to become better educated on the plight of tigers.
        The zoos and aquariums of AZA also have greatly expanded their
    conservation responsibilities well beyond their gates. AZA members are
    involved in field conservation programs on every continent, including
    rhinoceros and tiger field conservation programs in Asia and Africa.
    For example, the AZA Sumatran Tiger Species Survival Plan (SSP) works
    continuously with Indonesian wildlife authorities in developing their
    Center for the Reproduction of Endangered Species, benefiting both
    native rhinoceros and tigers. The Minnesota Zoological Garden has
    adopted the Ujung Kulon National Park, on the island of Java in
    Indonesia, to protect the last stronghold of the Javan rhino. A number
    of AZA institutions have combined their efforts with the International
    Rhino Foundation in Zimbabwe on several conservation projects to
    protect the southern black rhinoceros.
        For many years, AZA institutions also have had the good fortune to
    maintain a number of endangered species in their care, giving them the
    opportunity to develop successful techniques in veterinary care,
    reproductive technology, genetic analysis, population management,
    disease control, and tracking animals' movements using technology such
    as radio or satellite telemetry that have been transferred to use in
    the field. In essence, AZA zoos and aquariums have become the
    classrooms for field conservation.
      h.r. 3113, the rhinoceros and tiger conservation reauthorization act
        The AZA strongly supports the reauthorization of the Rhinoceros and
    Tiger Conservation Act. The AZA believes the Rhinoceros and Tiger Fund
    has already proven itself effective for critical conservation programs
    in Africa for the highly endangered northern white and southern black
    rhinoceros, and for developing workshops in India and Indonesia for
    improving enforcement programs. Like the African Elephant Conservation
    Fund--a recognized successful public-private partnership--this fund is
    designed to deliver immediate results by assisting conservation
    organizations on the front lines in saving animals from extinction
    through critical field conservation work and anti-poaching efforts.
    These funds, which must be shared among tiger programs in over ten
    countries and programs for five species of rhinos, have kept, and will
    continue to keep, several important conservation efforts moving
    forward.
        AZA believes its ability to educate 122 million visitors annually--
    including 10 million students as part of their classroom and summer
    camp activities--with our expanding field conservation programs, has
    placed us in the forefront of wildlife conservation education. AZA and
    its member institutions will continue to work with the FWS and Congress
    in combating the senseless destruction of these magnificent animals.
                          s. 263, bear protection act
        Most populations of the world's eight bear species have experienced
    significant declines during this century. Habitat loss and overhunting
    has played a critical role in the demise of Asian bear populations in
    particular. An international market in bear parts for traditional Asian
    medicines also exists. While the scope and impact of this trade on bear
    populations is not clearly known, the relatively high market value of
    bear parts, particularly gall bladder and bile, warrants that action be
    taken to minimize the threat or potential threat of illegal trade. In
    spite of this, black bear populations in the United States remain among
    the healthiest in the world.
        It is in the context of the U.S. black bear populations that AZA
    has concerns with S. 263. While we support the broad intent of S. 263
    to conserve bear species, we are reluctant to fully support the bill
    because we believe we do not yet understand the problems facing bears
    in the United States and the connections to global bear conservation.
    Although the illegal Asian medicinal market poses a threat to Asiatic
    bear species, we have not seen evidence to support the claim that bears
    in the United States are also threatened by the demand for bear
    viscera.
        The American black bear is already listed in Appendix II of CITES,
    and most States already prohibit the commercial trade in bear parts
    (29). While there are seven States that allow commercial trade of
    products from bears taken within their borders, most of these bear
    populations are stable and in some cases may even be increasing. The
    exception is the Louisiana and Florida subspecies. Although
    inconsistent State laws may facilitate illegal trade in bear parts,
    there is not enough convincing evidence to indicate this is a
    widespread problem.
        The AZA, WWF, and National Wildlife Federation share the same
    concerns and expressed those in a 23 June letter to Chairman Chafee,
    Senator Kempthorne, Senator McConnell, and Congressman Porter. Our
    specific recommendations for S. 263 are as follows:
        (1) Amend the legislation to allow for a broad review of the
    trade--directed by the Department of Interior and with the assistance
    of State fish and wildlife agencies--to accurately assess problem areas
    so that enforcement resources can be appropriately applied. This would
    involve an assessment of the illegal trade in bear viscera in the
    United States and its impact on wild bear populations in North America
    and elsewhere, and an examination of the links of such activities to
    the Asian medicinal trade. Specific authorization for funding should be
    included with a tight deadline in which to conduct such a review.
        (2) Provide the Department of Interior with greater authority to
    impose broader trade restrictions, pending the outcome of the trade
    review conducted. A similar approach is embodied in the African
    Elephant Conservation Act, and was effectively employed by the United
    States during the 1980's to combat the ivory trade.
        (3) Include authorization language for funding to strengthen long-
    term enforcement goals of the Bear Protection Act.
        (4) Include a provision in the legislation authorizing specific
    funding to support conservation programs for endangered bears. This
    will help ensure long-term viability of the world's eight bear species
    and the continuation of the American black bear population.
        AZA would be pleased to work with the committee in developing
    legislation to contribute to global bear conservation.
        Thank you for allowing me to testify on these four important
    wildlife bills.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Molly Krival, Ph.D., Volunteer and Board Member
    of the ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society (DDWS), J. N. ``Ding'' Darling
                     National Wildlife Refuge, Sanibel, FL
                                  introduction
        My name is Molly Krival. I come to you as the archetypical little
    old lady in tennis shoes--one of many little old ladies and younger
    people--who volunteer at a national wildlife refuge.
        When my husband and I retired from the U. of Wisconsin System, we
    moved to Sanibel--off the SW coast of Florida--because of the refuge
    there and because of the conservation ethic of that city. As soon as
    our boxes were stowed away, we went to the visitor center to apply to
    become volunteers. That was 10 years ago.
        We were trained to provide information to the public first in the
    visitor center and later on Wildlife Drive where we focus our spotting
    scope on some of the wonderful wildlife in view. We joined the refuge's
    cooperating association, the ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society and, in
    time, were elected to the board where I have served as President. Our
    150-160 volunteers are funded primarily by Society income and are
    trained and organized by a volunteer coordinator from the refuge staff.
        A few years ago, the Society offered training to Managers of other
    refuges--and now National Parks also--to help them organize Friends
    groups of their own, training that has been repeated by the National
    Conservation Training Center each year since. And I am a member of a
    mentor team which visits refuges nationwide who are ready to start a
    Friends group.
        This year I was selected as the Volunteer of the Year for the
    refuge system--a great honor. Another board member and I have given
    5,000 hours to the refuge. It is this background that enables me to
    speak for this Refuge System Volunteer and Partnership bill. I will
    direct my remarks to three of its provisions.
                         reasons for support of sb 2244
        1. It encourages the use of volunteers, facilitates partnerships
    and encourages donations.
        On many refuges, the most likely people seen by visitors are
    volunteers. Refuge staffing is often at a bare minimum and they are
    deeply involved in managing the resource for wildlife. When they train
    volunteers, the staff multiplies its productivity. You can imagine a
    flow chart in which volunteers, partners and staff contribute to the
    amount of work done on a refuge.
        Partnerships often provide a refuge with cooperative funding for
    needed projects not covered by Federal appropriations. Civilian Friends
    groups, such as the ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society, also do that. So
    do partnerships with gateway cities like the city of Sanibel, and
    private groups like the Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation. Grant
    providing institutions recognize the value of funding partnership
    projects which tend to do more for the dollar.
        2. Section 3 of this bill allows gifts and donations to be made to
    individual refuges and creates a new matching grants program to
    encourage donations.
        During my first week as a volunteer, an elderly woman who had known
    ``Ding'' Darling came to the visitor center with a drawing he had given
    her. She wanted to give the drawing to the refuge. The staff member I
    consulted looked frustrated. The refuge couldn't keep donations. The
    Society could. The word circulated that the Society could accept
    donations and we have received many. Since not all refuges have a
    Friends group to receive donations, gifts have either been refused or
    sent to some mysterious agency reservoir never to be seen again.
        As I travel to refuges all over the country, I find that local
    people form an allegiance to their own local refuge first and want to
    support it. That conviction of the heart leads to donations of time and
    other gifts in kind as well as money. Being sure our donations will
    stay ``at home'' is very important to us. I find that local people are
    far less likely to make donations if those gifts go to some distant
    agency.
        Lately our Society decided to raise $2 million in private funds to
    build a new Center for Education. This is a first effort of its kind in
    the refuge system. So far, we have raised about one million four
    hundred thousand dollars. We expect to complete our drive with only a
    small portion coming from government associated grants. But other
    refuges with high visitation rates and strong Friends groups have goals
    that outstrip their fund raising capabilities; such as
         to build their first visitor center and/or increase office
    space;
         to purchase big and small items to help manage the
    wildlife habitat;
         to upgrade environmental education in their community and/
    or schools.
        They need money. Almost always they can raise a portion themselves,
    but the option for a matching grant would be very encouraging to them.
    That provision in this bill would light a lot of fires that we wouldn't
    need to put out.
        3. SB 2244 allows the Department of Interior to start a regional
    pilot project that includes providing a volunteer coordinator to
    organize and oversee volunteer programs.
        Volunteers are a resource of people with all sorts of skills who
    want to help the refuge. We continue volunteering when we are well-
    trained, well-organized, and recognized for our contributions.
        There are many refuges where a few volunteers simply work with the
    staff. Where public visitation runs into the hundreds of thousands
    annually--visitation is rising everywhere--volunteer numbers increase.
    Those refuges need a volunteer coordinator to do the job right.
                             summary and conclusion
        All of the provisions of SB 2244 encourage people living near--or
    who have an attachment to--one of the over 500 national wildlife
    refuges
         to take an active role in helping meet its mission,
         to volunteer,
         to form a private nonprofit 501(c)3 in support of the
    refuge and other partnerships and
         to donate and encourage donations to their local refuge.
        I believe our political system works best when people freely
    associate themselves with it. Many of us, when we grow older, find
    enormous satisfaction in helping conserve the best of what we have for
    future generations. Many of us suddenly have time to see a bird, an
    alligator, a flowering plant for the miracle of nature it is. Our
    hearts leap up.
        I thank Senator Chafee and the 14 co-signers for selecting this
    means of helping the largest land management system in the world, the
    National Wildlife Refuges. And I thank this committee for the privilege
    of addressing you.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of Gary J. Taylor, Legislative Director,
            International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Gary Taylor, legislative director of
    the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and I
    appreciate the opportunity to share with you the Association's
    perspectives on several fish and wildlife bills before the committee.
    You have asked particularly for our comments on the Bear Protection
    Act; the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act; and the
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.
        The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
    founded in 1902, is a quasi governmental organization of public
    agencies charged with the protection and management of North America's
    fish and wildlife resources. The Association's governmental members
    include the fish and wildlife agencies of the States, provinces, and
    Federal Governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. All 50
    States are members. The Association has been a key organization in
    promoting sound resource management and strengthening Federal, State,
    and private cooperation in protecting and managing fish and wildlife
    and their habitats in the public interest.
        Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, with our comments on S. 263, the Bear
    Protection Act. The Association cannot support S. 263 as introduced. We
    understand that the intent of the bill sponsors is to help address the
    poaching of Asian bear species for their gall. However, the bill as
    currently drafted focuses its application largely on the regulation of
    trade of bear viscera in the United States based on the premise that
    domestic poaching of U.S. indigenous bear species is contributing to
    the market demand for bear gall and is having (or could in the future
    have) a significant negative impact on U.S. bear populations. Mr.
    Chairman, there is no substantiation to support either of these
    premises, and the Association therefore concludes that as drafted S.
    263 is neither necessary nor helpful in addressing the decline of
    foreign bear species. Let me offer right up front, Mr. Chairman, that
    the Association is certainly willing to work with the bill sponsors and
    the USFWS on a more appropriately focused import-export bill that would
    address any existing regulatory deficiencies under the Convention on
    International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES).
    However, S. 263 as introduced, does not do that.
        Mr. Chairman, as you are likely aware, bear populations throughout
    the United States are robust and generally increasing. Also, as you are
    likely aware, the statutory responsibility for the conservation and
    management of bear species in the United States lies largely with the
    State fish and wildlife agencies, except for the polar bear, grizzly
    bear and Louisiana black bear where the USFWS shares jurisdiction for
    these species with the States.
        Regulation of bear harvest and allowable use of any parts or
    products (fur, claws, gall, etc.) is thus closely regulated by the
    State Fish and Wildlife agency including through the application and
    enforcement of the Lacey Act by State and Federal wildlife officers. As
    you are aware, the Lacey Act already makes it a Federal violation to
    transport or sell across State lines any wildlife that is illegally
    taken in the State of origin. As recently as May, 1997, our Association
    surveyed all 38 bear range States regarding illegal harvest and
    population impact. The information from the States clearly
    substantiates that while incidental illegal harvest occurs, there is no
    significant population impact from illegal harvest in any bear range
    State. If there were, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that our State
    fish and wildlife agencies would take appropriate action to address it.
    This conclusion is also corroborated by the USFWS in a paper delivered
    last year at the 2d International Symposium on the Trade of Bear Parts,
    in which Dr. Gnam and Dr. Lieberman of the Office of Management
    Authority conclude that the FWS ``. . . Division of Law Enforcement has
    determined that the poaching of American black bear for their gall
    bladders and other parts to supply the demands of the Asian market for
    these products is not a significant problem and does not occur on any
    large scale.''
        The Association believes, therefore, that the application of the
    Lacey Act to all U.S. domestic commerce in bear viscera, whether it is
    legal in a State or not, as proposed in S. 263 is unnecessary for bear
    resource protection, and is an inappropriate Federal intrusion into
    State management authorities and prerogatives. If enacted, enforcement
    of this law would divert wildlife law enforcement conservation efforts
    away from higher priority issues as commercial trade and trafficking of
    wildlife, particularly foreign species. Mr. Chairman, it is not as easy
    to poach bear unobtrusively as it is to take a few squirrels or rabbits
    out of season. The States spend tens of millions of dollars each year
    in wildlife law enforcement and I assure you would be aware of any
    significant poaching of domestic bear populations. The several States'
    record on conservation law enforcement speaks for itself and there is
    no substantiated evidence that would compel Federal intervention. The
    State fish and wildlife agencies are prepared to respond to any
    increase in poaching of bears.
        Mr. Chairman, our State-based system of fish and wildlife
    conservation in the United States is justifiably the envy of the rest
    of the world. Let me suggest that, rather than the creation of
    additional Federal statutory authority as contemplated in S. 263,
    especially where it preempts State management prerogatives, the
    provision of additional resources to the USFWS--Division of Law
    Enforcement would be a more appropriate and effective means of
    affecting Asian bear populations by the regulation of illegal trade in
    their parts or products. As I indicated earlier, there is little data
    to substantiate if U.S. bear gall is contributing to a market demand
    for Asian bear gall and thus affecting the Asian bear parts trade, and
    consequently, the Asian bear population. The Association would thus
    encourage additional support to the USFWS-LE to answer this question
    also. Finally, as I indicated earlier, we would be happy to work with
    the bill sponsors and USFWS on a more narrowly focused import-export
    bill that could address some legal deficiencies in CITES that might
    exist now.
        However, the Association believes S. 263 as introduced is both
    unnecessary and inappropriately expansive in its reach to domestic bear
    species, and unnecessarily intrudes into State conservation and
    management prerogatives for wildlife. We therefore cannot support S.
    263 as introduced.
        Let me now turn to S. 659, the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
    Conservation Act. In general while the Association can support the bill
    from a perspective that it could facilitate more effective cooperation
    between the Federal, State and tribal entities relative to fisheries
    restoration, we would question whether this legislation is necessary to
    accomplish that objective. Further, we wish to express our interest in
    the use of the authorized money for on-the-ground fisheries
    conservation and restoration efforts, rather than for USFWS facilities
    and administrative infrastructure.
        Mr. Chairman, we certainly recognize the ecological value of the
    Great Lakes and the need for close cooperation among the many
    jurisdictional entities in restoration of this system to its former
    health. Our State fish and wildlife agencies work closely with our
    Federal U.S. and Canadian partners, provincial partners, and tribal
    partners toward this objective. The role of the Great Lakes Commission
    and the Great Lake Fishery Commission have also been instrumental in
    focusing and facilitating coordinated efforts to meeting this objective
    of restored health to the Great Lakes ecosystem. And there is no
    question that we are making significant progress toward that objective.
    However, while we don't want to minimize the importance of
    congressional direction toward this effort as reflected in S. 659, we
    question whether this legislative action is necessary. The FWS already
    has the necessary authority to implement its role in carrying out the
    recommendations of the Great Lakes Fishery Restoration Study, and this
    bill appropriately gives them no additional authority. Whether or not
    the statutory establishment of another committee is necessary to
    consider funding for proposals to implement the study is also subject
    to question. The Association also believes that the FWS can and should
    (if appropriate) increase its budget request to fulfill its role and
    obligations in the Great Lakes fishery efforts regardless of whether S.
    659 is enacted into law. As I mentioned earlier, we are also interested
    in ensuring that any additional authorization under S. 659 is directed
    at on the ground efforts in fishery restoration, and not toward
    furthering USFWS offices, facilities or administrative infrastructure.
    We realize that the Appropriations Committee may be the more germane
    focus of our concerns, but we also wanted you to be aware of these
    concerns. Having said all of this, I can share with you the support of
    the Association for S. 659, but should also let you know that the
    enthusiasm of this support among the eight Great Lakes State fish and
    wildlife agencies varies widely.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me briefly comment on S. 1970, the
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The Association has long
    played an active role in migratory bird conservation, from the
    negotiation and ratification of the Migratory Bird Treaty in 1916 and
    passage of the MBTA in 1918, to the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Act, currently before this Congress for reauthorization.
    The Association has also given the highest priority to securing the
    necessary funding to enable our State fish and wildlife agencies to
    address the conservation needs of the so-called nongame wildlife
    species (such as Neotropical migratory birds) and their habitats before
    they reach a point where the application of the Endangered Species Act
    is necessary. I know that you are familiar with our ``Teaming with
    Wildlife'' proposal, Mr. Chairman, to accomplish that objective. The
    Association and our member State fish and wildlife agencies are also
    very active in Partners-in-Flight, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird
    Reserve Program, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and
    other international endeavors to conserve migratory birds throughout
    their range. The Association therefore supports S. 1970 as another
    measure to facilitate the conservation of migratory birds, particularly
    in Latin America and the Caribbean.
        Most of our member State fish and wildlife agencies participating
    in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan are currently sending
    matching funds to both Canada and Mexico to facilitate the conservation
    objectives of this plan. Our agencies in the border States of
    California, Arizona and Texas are already engaged in conservation
    efforts in Mexico and other Latin American countries to restore
    indigenous fauna. We anticipate that our State fish and wildlife
    agencies would likewise participate in the matching fund protocol that
    S. 1970 would establish for neotropical migratory bird species
    conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean.
        Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, our habitat conservation
    efforts in the United States encompassing the breeding range of these
    species will be successful only if the habitat in their winter range is
    likewise secured. The Association believes that S. 1970 establishes a
    protocol to facilitate that, and therefore supports this measure.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share the Association's
    perspectives of these bills, and I would be pleased to answer any
    questions.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Thomas Crane, Program Manager, Resource
          Management and Environmental Quality, Great Lakes Commission
                                  introduction
        On behalf of the eight member States of the Great Lakes Commission,
    I am pleased to speak in support of S. 659, reauthorization of the
    Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act. Passage implementation
    of the original Act provided the Great Lake States--and the entire
    Great Lakes governance infrastructure-with a framework for the
    cooperative conservation, restoration and management of fish and
    wildlife resources. Reauthorization of the Act will ensure that present
    progress is maintained and new initiatives are pursued, including
    implementation of Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study
    recommendations.
        The Great Lakes Commission embraces the notion of resource
    management by interjurisdictional cooperation and intergovernmental
    partnership. These philosophies are embodied in the Act and,
    consequently, prompted the eight member States of the Great Lakes
    Commission to unanimously endorse S. 659 by formal resolution on April
    3, 1998.
        We in the Great Lakes Basin maintain a tradition of multi-
    jurisdictional cooperation that dates back to the early years of the
    20th century. We recognize that the environmental and economic
    significance of this Basin and its resources transcends our own
    political boundaries and spans this Nation, North America and the
    entire globe. These resources, which include the largest system of
    fresh surface water on earth, have a national and global significance
    that demands the interest and support of citizens and members of
    Congress from coast to coast. The Great Lakes system is the world's
    largest freshwater laboratory; it is a bellwether of scientific
    investigation. It is also the world's largest freshwater laboratory for
    institutional experimentation. What we learn here--from both our
    successes and failures--can form the basis of knowledge for future
    actions and management efforts elsewhere.
        We in the Great Lakes Basin have also long recognized the benefits
    of a hydrologic, or watershed-based approach to resource management and
    environmental protection. Transcending the artificiality of political
    boundaries to manage resources and human behaviors on a watershed basis
    is a fundamental requirement of an ecosystem approach to Great Lakes
    management, or to management in any other region of North America and
    beyond.
        In my testimony today, I will briefly describe the purpose and
    programs of the Great Lakes Commission, the ecologic and economic
    significance of the Great Lakes fishery, and the past and projected
    benefits of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act. I will
    argue that intergovernmental partnership and, particularly Federal/
    State partnership, is perhaps the single most important element of
    resource management efforts in the Great Lakes Basin. I will conclude
    with several specific comments on the legislation.
                           the great lakes commission
        While each of you are undoubtedly acquainted with the purpose and
    programs of the Great Lakes Commission, I do wish to begin my testimony
    with a brief background statement to provide a context for the items
    that follow.
        The Great Lakes Commission is an interstate compact agency with a
    legislative mandate to represent the collective views of the eight
    Great Lakes States before the Congress and the Federal Government. The
    Commission was established in 1955 under State statutes and granted
    congressional consent in 1968 via P.L. 90-419, The Great Lakes Basin
    Compact. The Compact directs the Commission to ``promote the orderly,
    integrated, and comprehensive development, use and conservation of the
    water resources of the Great Lakes basin.''
        The Commission is comprised of Governors' appointees, State
    officials and legislators from its member States (Illinois, Indiana,
    Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin). It is
    supported in part through annual State dues, and stands ready to assist
    and represent its membership on issues and opportunities of shared
    interest. The Great Lakes Commission also maintains a strong and active
    Observer program, which provides for (non-voting) participation by U.S.
    and Canadian Federal agencies, provincial governments, tribal
    authorities, regional organizations and selected other public entities.
        We at the Great Lakes Commission share a resource management
    philosophy that influences every aspect of our work. To summarize, we
    recognize that:
         Regional economic development and environmental goals are
    not mutually exclusive. They are inseparable and must be pursued in
    concert to achieve the region's full potential.
         The eight Great Lakes States, acting collectively through
    the Great Lakes Commission, have a principal stewardship responsibility
    for the precious and irreplaceable resources of the Great Lakes region.
         Management of the Great Lakes is of both national and
    regional interest; it is neither the exclusive responsibility of the
    States nor the Federal Government. Rather, a Federal/State partnership
    must be sustained and nurtured.
         The Great Lakes, despite their vastness and resilience,
    are a finite and fragile resource. Maintaining their integrity is a
    sound and necessary investment in the region's economy and environment,
    as well as the health, welfare and quality of life of its citizens.
        The Commission pursues its mandate via three functions: information
    sharing among its member States, coordination of State positions on
    regional issues, and advocacy of those positions on which the States
    agree. A wide range of environmental, resource management,
    transportation and economic development issues is addressed. In so
    doing, the Commission works closely with Governors and State
    legislators; members of the Great Lakes Congressional Delegation;
    municipal, State, provincial and Federal agencies; interstate
    organizations; private sector firms and associations; universities;
    colleges and individual citizens.
        The Great Lakes Commission's role in addressing issues of resource
    management is found in the provisions of the Great Lakes Basin Compact.
    Article VI empowers the Commission to ``Consider means of improving and
    maintaining the fisheries of the Basin or any portion thereof.''
    Article VII further calls upon the Commission to initiate ``cooperative
    action to eradicate destruction and parasitical forces endangering the
    fisheries, wildlife and other water resources.'' In carrying out its
    responsibilities, the Great Lakes Commission is explicitly charged with
    the responsibility of recommending ``uniform or other laws, ordinances
    and regulations.'' It is under this authority that the Great Lakes
    Commission endorses S. 659, reauthorization of the Great Lakes Fish and
    Wildlife Restoration Act.
              the great lakes fishery and its management framework
        The Great Lakes boast a world-class fishery of fundamental
    importance to the ecological health and economic well being of the
    Basin and its residents. The fishery, valued at more than $4.0 billion
    annually in direct and indirect benefits, supports almost 80,000 jobs.
    On the Great Lakes proper, 3.77 million anglers devote 46.4 million
    angler days to the sport annually. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data
    (1985) also indicate that Great Lakes trip expenditures annually
    include $265 million for food, $65 million for lodging, $202 million
    for transportation, $143 million for equipment purchases, and almost
    $27 million for licenses, stamps and permits. Four of the Great Lakes
    States are among the top ten States nationally in resident fishing
    license sales. Statistics for Ontario are equally impressive: in 1985
    almost 2.2 million adults were active anglers, accounting for 34.4
    million fishing days.
        The history of the Great Lakes fishery is a study in sound science,
    innovative management and interjurisdictional cooperation characterized
    by Federal/State/tribal partnership and U.S./Canada collaboration. The
    collaborative management framework if defined and shaped by two
    landmark agreements that transcend the parochialism of individual
    jurisdictions in favor of a Basinwide, ecosystem-based management
    approach. Signed by the governments of the United States and Canada in
    1955, the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries--and its implementing
    body, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission--are directed at achieving an
    improved and sustainable future for the fishery by establishing and
    coordinating a research program, and by implementing a joint program
    for sea lamprey control.
        Complementing the Convention is the Joint Strategic Plan for
    Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, signed in 1981 (and most recently
    revised in 1997) by State, tribal, provincial and Federal agencies with
    Great Lakes fishery management authority. The Joint Strategic Plan
    enables signatories to coordinate activities and collaborate on joint
    programs and assessment efforts. Noted success in sea lamprey control,
    a revitalized sport fishery and other restoration efforts speak to the
    value of the Joint Strategic Plan.
        Effective implementation of the Joint Strategic Plan demands a
    strong legislative framework at the State, provincial and Federal
    levels. Since 1990, the U.S. Federal Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
    Restoration Act has played a critically important role in collaborative
    management. Among others, it has vested the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service with the authority and resources to provide technical
    assistance to partners; establish regional offices to promote
    coordination, information dissemination and public awareness; and
    undertake a Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study yielding
    recommendations for the future of the fishery. Reauthorization of the
    Act will ensure that past investments in the fishery are safeguarded
    and new initiatives are undertaken to build upon those investments.
      comnments on s. 659: a bill to reauthorize the great lakes fish and
                            wildlife restoration act
        On behalf of its eight member States, the Great Lakes Commission is
    pleased to endorse S. 659, reauthorization of the Great Lakes Fish and
    Wildlife Restoration Act. Endorsement was provided by unanimous action
    on April 3,1998, when the Commission membership adopted its Legislative
    and Appropriations Priorities for the Second Session of the 105th
    Congress.
        Great Lakes Commission support for S. 659 is based upon the
    following four observations:
         Management Philosophy Embodied in the Act: The Act both
    reflects and furthers evolving resource management philosophies that
    have been embraced by the Great Lakes Commission. The Act emphasizes
    management by ecosystem as opposed to geo-political boundaries. It
    features interjurisdictional partnerships among Federal, State and
    tribal governments. It builds on existing authorities (e.g., Joint
    Strategic Plan) and existing institutional mechanisms (e.g., Council of
    Lake Committees, Great Lakes Fishery Commission) as opposed to creating
    new bureaucracy. It provides the States and tribal authorities, via the
    Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Proposal Review Committee,
    with recommendatory authority over allocation of grant moneys. And, it
    positions the Federal Government to provide services that are well-
    suited to inter-governmental partnership: technical assistance,
    coordination, research and financial support.
         Accomplishments of the Original Act: The U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service is a valued Observer agency within the Great Lakes
    Commission family. In this role, the Service is fully involved in all
    Commission deliberations and actions with the exception of voting--an
    authority that is limited to State members by provision in the Great
    Lakes Basin Compact. A strong U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Great
    Lakes Commission partnership has evolved on the strength of the
    original Act. Fishery Resource Offices in Michigan, Wisconsin and New
    York have provided the Great Lakes Commission with a first point of
    contact on fisheries issues that affect the States individually and
    collectively. And, beyond a number of resource-related accomplishments,
    the Act provided for the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration
    Study and its 32 recommendations that warrant serious consideration and
    action.
         Prospective Benefits of Study Implementation: The Great
    Lakes Commission concurs with the recommendations of the Great Lakes
    Fishery Resources Restoration Study, and views reauthorization and
    adequate funding of the Act as key to their implementation. Viewed
    collectively, the 32 recommendations are focused on five areas that are
    highly consistent with the management philosophy and associated extant
    policies of the Commission. These include: (1) coordinating and
    harmonizing programs across disciplines and Basin jurisdictions; (2)
    building upon and supporting existing programs and institutional
    arrangements; (3) strengthening the Basin's decision-support system by
    promoting research, monitoring, assessment, evaluation, data base
    enhancement and associated functions; (4) calling for the development,
    funding and implementation of action plans and various new initiatives;
    and (5) promoting public information and education.
         Support from the Great Lakes Community: The Great Lakes
    Commission recognizes that the reauthorization bill is supported within
    the Great Lakes community and addresses a number of State concerns with
    the original legislation. A Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S
    Fish and Wildlife Service and the Great Lakes States, Great Lakes
    Fishery Commission and several tribal authorities has helped ensure
    effective implementation of the Act.
        From a broader, Basin-wide perspective, we note that the bill is
    consistent with principles of the Ecosystem Charter for the Great
    Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin. The Charter, a non-binding ``good faith''
    agreement coordinated by the Great Lakes Commission, presents
    principles, findings and strategic actions to guide the ``ecosystem
    approach'' to Great Lakes management. Approximately 170 agencies and
    organizations--representing government, the private sector, academic
    and citizen interests--have endorsed the Charter to date. Principle V
    of the Charter states the following: ``An ecosystem approach to
    management that involves rehabilitating and protecting ecological
    processes and resources of the Basin Ecosystem shall be fully and
    widely adopted, based on the understanding that human activities,
    natural resources and ecological processes are interdependent and parts
    of a unified whole.'' A reauthorized Act will ensure continued progress
    in addressing this principle.
        With regard to specific provisions in S. 659, the Great Lakes
    Commission endorses the legislative language as presented. In
    particular, we applaud section 6 language that establishes a State/
    tribal review committee (under the auspices of the Great Lakes Fishery
    Commission's Council of Lake Committees) that will review and offer
    recommendations to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on fish and
    wildlife restoration proposals based on the results of the study.
    Further, the Great Lakes Commission concurs with changes in the
    reauthorization language that provide for enhanced focus on project
    implementation, and for a reduction in the annual authorization from
    $10 million to $5 million, with $3.5 million of the latter to be made
    available to State and tribal partners. We emphasize, however, that
    appropriation of the authorized amount will be essential if the goals
    of the Act are to be fully realized.
        The Great Lakes Commission emphasizes that reauthorizing the Act--
    rather than solely relying on existing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    authorities--is necessary to maintain and enhance progress under the
    original Act. Reauthorization will ensure that (1) recommendations from
    the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study will be
    implemented; (2) the existing network of regional offices will be
    maintained; (3) restoration proposals and resultant projects will be
    properly targeted; (4) existing institutional arrangements will be used
    to the extent possible; and (5) authorization levels will be set and
    targeted with an emphasis on project implementation.
                                   conclusion
        The Great Lakes Commission, on behalf of its eight member States,
    endorses S. 659, reauthorization of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
    Restoration Act. The Act provides a much-needed vehicle for the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service to provide technical, coordination, research,
    funding and related support to the collective Great Lakes fishery
    management effort. The Act builds upon existing agreements and
    institutional arrangements, provides for a Federal/State/tribal
    partnership, is action oriented, and offers a mechanism for
    implementing recommendations of the Great Lakes Fishery Resources
    Restoration Study. The Great Lakes Commission therefore urges the
    Congress to support the legislation.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Dan Beard, Senior Vice President of Public
                        Policy, National Audubon Society
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide our views on
    S. 2244, the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer And Partnership
    Enhancement Act of 1998. The mission of the National Audubon Society,
    representing more than one million members and supporters nationwide,
    is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, other
    wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and the
    earth's biological diversity. We appreciate the committee's continuing
    interest in the National Wildlife Refuge System, our Nation's premier
    Federal lands for the conservation of birds and wildlife, and applaud
    Senator Chafee for introducing this important legislation. We believe
    that institutionalizing the value of volunteering and community
    participation in connection with wildlife refuges is a vital step as we
    work to build public appreciation for these special places.
        The National Audubon Society has been an advocate of the Refuge
    System since its inception. When the first refuge was established by
    President Teddy Roosevelt, Audubon stepped in and hired the first
    refuge manager. Nearly 100 years later, we are still proud to support
    these special places. Over the past 15 years, Audubon has worked to
    more formally institutionalize volunteering on refuges first by
    encouraging Audubon Chapters to ``adopt'' refuges and, most recently,
    by initiating the Audubon Refuge Keepers (ARK) program. The ARK program
    seeks to build local support for refuges through volunteering and
    community education. Presently, there are more than 50 ARK groups that
    have formed partnerships with national wildlife refuges. In addition,
    we estimate that approximately 150 Audubon chapters regularly volunteer
    at wildlife refuges throughout the year. Following are several examples
    of how Auduboners are assisting local refuges meet their needs:
         Last year, the West Volusia Audubon Society raised $10,000
    to construct a viewing tower on at Lake Woodruff NWR in Florida.
         The Anchorage Audubon Society has undertaken a
    collaborative project with the Alaska Maritime NWR to produce a
    brochure on shorebird viewing and protection.
         The Altacal Audubon Society conducted a bird-a-thon to
    raise money for the purchase of spotting scopes for the Sacramento NWR.
    These spotting scopes will be available for a variety of uses,
    including assisting schoolchildren in wildlife viewing.
         The North Carolina Audubon Council is working on an
    initial project to develop an outreach and strategy plan for the Pee
    Dee Environmental Education Center at Pee Dee NWR.
         In Texas, the Travis Audubon Society is working on a
    project to enhance public viewing of the endangered black-capped vireo
    at Blacones Canyonlands NWR, which is recognized as an Important Bird
    Area.
         The Monterey Peninsula Audubon Society has prepared bird
    lists, guided wildlife interpretive tours and provided photographs for
    refuge files and publications at Salinas River NWR in California.
         The Morro Coast Audubon Society is rehabilitating a fire
    tower for the Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge. The tower will
    be used to monitor the reintroduced California Condor.
        The National Audubon Society is proud to be a leader in providing
    local support for wildlife refuges, but we believe there is a distinct
    need for broader community involvement. In this regard, we applaud the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuges for its efforts to
    reach a wider constituency as part of their ``Friends Initiatives.'' By
    promoting the establishment of citizen support groups around refuges,
    S. 2244 will enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to harness the
    incredible energy of volunteers and average citizens to protect and
    enhance the Refuge System. Currently, volunteers contribute more than
    1.4 million hours a year to refuges. This translates into well over
    tens of millions of dollars in services to the refuge system. There is
    a vast, untapped source of labor and love for wildlife and the special
    places we call ``refuges.'' In this regard, S. 2244's promotion of
    volunteerism among seniors is a great start toward tapping a
    significant source of volunteers.
        Despite the tremendous value of volunteering and building local
    support for wildlife refuges, National Audubon does not expect
    volunteering to supplant sufficient operations and maintenance (O&M)
    funding for refuges. The system has a current backlog of nearly a
    billion dollars. Nevertheless, increased volunteering on refuges and
    partnering with local communities will have lasting value for refuges.
    In particular, we believe that increased community participation on
    refuges will lead to a greater appreciation for the important role
    refuges play with respect to species and habitat conservation.
        Another important provision of S. 2244 is the simplification of
    procedures by which local groups can make donations to particular
    refuges or refuge complexes. We are aware of several instances where
    local groups have sought to provide money to refuges in their area, but
    have been turned away because of administrative red-tape. We believe
    that fundraising efforts on behalf of local refuges should be promoted
    rather than hindered. S. 2244 resolves this problem and will promote
    increased private fundraising efforts on behalf of refuges.
        We are pleased that education is recognized and promoted in S.
    2244. Audubon chapters have long recognized the value of refuges as
    outdoor classrooms for local schools. In collaboration with the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation, National Audubon is working to expand the ``Earth
    Stewards'' program which will help refuges meet their tremendous
    potential for outdoor education. We are eager to see more teachers and
    students take advantage of the many learning opportunities refuges have
    to offer.
        S. 2244 is an important bill which will do much to promote
    community involvement in our National Wildlife Refuges. We again
    congratulate Senator Chafee and his staff for their hard work on this
    legislation. The National Audubon Society looks forward to working with
    the committee as we move toward building citizen support for our
    National Wildlife Refuges in the coming years.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of David R. Mills, Chairman of the Board of County
                   Commissioners of Sarasota County, Florida
        Mr Chairman, I want to thank you and all the members of the
    committee for giving me the opportunity to offer testimony on the
    status and future of the National Estuary Program in general and the
    Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program in particular.
        Estuaries are very important in both environmental and economic
    terms. They provide habitat for fish, birds and other wildlife.
    Seventy-five percent of the U.S. commercial fish catch depends on
    estuaries during at least some stage of their life. The fishing
    industry provides $111 billion to the Nation's economy annually and
    supports 1.5 million jobs. Because of their beauty and intriguing
    biodiversity, estuaries are also an asset to the Nation's tourism
    industry.
        Ironically, some of the things that make estuaries so precious are
    the very reasons they have become threatened. Due to their natural
    beauty and hence their popularity, the overall capacity of our Nation's
    estuaries as healthy and productive ecosystems is declining. Increased
    land development and activity associated with increased population in
    these areas has, in turn, caused increased stormwater runoff and other
    discharges that contribute to siltation, increased nutrients and other
    contamination.
        In 1987, Congress recognized the threats to these important coastal
    areas and included the National Estuary Program in amendments to the
    Clean Water Act. The purpose of the program is to facilitate State and
    local governments' preparation of comprehensive conservation and
    management plans, or CCMPs, for estuaries covered under the program. To
    date, 28 estuaries have been designated. Section 320 of the Clean Water
    Act authorized the EPA to make grants to States to develop their plans.
    However, the law does not provide for resources to facilitate
    implementation of the plans and 17 of these 28 plans are already
    complete.
        One of the plans that has been completed is for Sarasota Bay in
    Sarasota County, Florida, the county I serve. While each of the
    estuaries in the National Estuary Program is unique in terms of their
    physical attributes and their diverse inhabitants, they are equally
    unique in the varying threats that are posed to them. A common estuary
    pollutant in Sarasota Bay is nitrogen, an overabundance of which causes
    increased growth of algae. The algae reduces light penetration to the
    other organisms in the water and, through chemical and biological
    processes, depletes the water of oxygen. It has been determined that
    the amount of nitrogen in Sarasota Bay has tripled since intensive
    development began. The source of the increased levels of nitrogen in
    the Bay has been both small and large wastewater treatment plants,
    groundwater contaminated by septic systems and fertilizers used in lawn
    care and agriculture. Without remedial action, the EPA claims that the
    nitrogen level would increase 16 percent in the next 20 years when the
    area is fully developed according to existing plans. However, by
    implementing the restoration plan for Sarasota Bay, these levels of
    nitrogen can be 23 percent lower than they are today.
        In addition to the introduction of nitrogen into estuaries,
    surrounding development has also introduced an array of viruses,
    bacteria and parasites that can pose a threat to swimmers, surfers,
    divers and seafood consumers. Sources of these microbial contaminants
    include leaky septic tanks, boat and marina waste, recreational
    vehicles and campers, animal droppings, combined sewer overflows and
    urban and agricultural runoff. Fish and filter feeding organisms such
    as shellfish can concentrate these pathogens in their tissues and can
    cause illness to people who consume them. As a result, shellfishing
    areas and bathing beaches are often closed. Several estuaries are
    experiencing contamination problems that require extensive research
    into their origins and effects, such as the toxic microbe Pfiesteria
    piscicida, which has broken out in rivers that drain into estuaries in
    Maryland and Virginia.
        Phillippi Creek, which feeds into Sarasota Bay, is posted with
    warning signs of the potential health risks associated with exposure to
    its waters. Scientific studies done on Phillippi Creek have shown the
    presence of fecal coliform and human viruses. There are 7,500 septic
    tanks along Phillippi Creek that will have to be replaced with a
    central wastewater treatment system in accord with the proposed plan at
    a cost of some $100 million.
        The plan that has been developed for the Sarasota Bay Estuary is an
    integral one that seeks to stem environmental impacts and enhance
    natural systems. Most past environmental regulatory efforts in Florida
    have concentrated on the larger, regional wastewater treatment plants.
    While these programs have been successful in reducing nitrogen loads
    from those facilities, the 45,000 septic tanks and the 55 small
    wastewater treatment plants in the Sarasota County area contribute
    nearly twice as much pollutant as the regional facilities, despite
    handling less than half of the volume. Since the focus has not
    historically been on septic tanks and smaller facilities, that is where
    the biggest problem lies, especially for Sarasota Bay. The Sarasota Bay
    NEP's overall recommendation for this problem is the aforementioned
    replacement of a significant number of these tanks with a central
    wastewater treatment system along Phillippi Creek as well as other
    small treatment plants.
        Additionally, the Sarasota Bay CCMP calls for revised regulation of
    septic tanks and small wastewater treatment plants, programs to reduce
    the use of fertilizers and pesticides in the area, using artificial
    reefs as fisheries to replenish marine populations and restoring the
    intertidal wetlands. Effectively managed recreational use of the Bay is
    also recommended, as it will foster a sense of stewardship for the
    estuary with both tourists and residents alike.
        S. 1321 will take the next step by giving EPA the authority to make
    grants for plan implementation and authorizing annual appropriations of
    $50 million. There is also language in this bill that emphasizes and
    insures that the program remain a partnership with a matching
    requirement so that the funds will be available to upgrade sewage
    treatment plants, fix combined sewer overflows, control urban
    stormwater discharges and reduce polluted runoff into estuarine areas.
    We in Sarasota are committed to this partnership. Last November, a 1
    percent sales tax levy was passed to generate funds and we already have
    preliminary engineering work underway for this project. In other words,
    we come to Washington ready, willing and able to shoulder our share of
    the partnership envisioned by S. 1321.
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request your assistance
    and that of all the members of this committee to ensure the
    preservation of our Nation's estuarine areas not only as a natural
    wonder, but also as an environmental and economic asset to the regions
    in which they exist. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit our
    views on this important issue.