    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    H.R. 2964, CAPTIVE PRIMATE SAFETY ACT; AND H.R. 5534, BEAR PROTECTION
                                 ACT OF 2008.

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

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   before the

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE
                                   AND OCEANS

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                            Tuesday, March 11, 2008

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 110-63

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                                   index.html
                                       or
             Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    41-235 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  2008
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office  Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
    DC area (202)512-1800  Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                  NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
                  DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member

    Dale E. Kildee, Michigan             Jim Saxton, New Jersey
    Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American      Elton Gallegly, California
        Samoa                            John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
    Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii             Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
    Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas              Chris Cannon, Utah
    Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey       Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
    Donna M. Christensen, Virgin         Jeff Flake, Arizona
        Islands                          Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
    Grace F. Napolitano, California      Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
    Rush D. Holt, New Jersey                 Carolina
    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
    Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam          Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
    Jim Costa, California                Louie Gohmert, Texas
    Dan Boren, Oklahoma                  Tom Cole, Oklahoma
    John P. Sarbanes, Maryland           Rob Bishop, Utah
    George Miller, California            Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
    Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts      Bill Sali, Idaho
    Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon             Doug Lamborn, Colorado
    Maurice D. Hinchey, New York         Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
    Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island     Adrian Smith, Nebraska
    Ron Kind, Wisconsin                  Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
    Lois Capps, California
    Jay Inslee, Washington
    Mark Udall, Colorado
    Joe Baca, California
    Hilda L. Solis, California
    Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
        Dakota
    Heath Shuler, North Carolina

                         James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
                           Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
                Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director
                     Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
                                     ------

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

                    MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman
         HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member

    Dale E. Kildee, Michigan             Jim Saxton, New Jersey
    Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American      Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
        Samoa                            Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
    Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii             Tom Cole, Oklahoma
    Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas              Bill Sali, Idaho
    Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey       Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
    Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island     Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
    Ron Kind, Wisconsin
    Lois Capps, California
    Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
        ex officio
                                     ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Tuesday, March 11, 2008..........................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     2
        Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of South Carolina................................     2
            Prepared statement of....................................     4

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Evans, Sian, Ph.D., Director, DuMond Conservancy.............    12
            Prepared statement of....................................    13
            Response to questions submitted for the record...........    15
        Golab, Gail, Ph.D., Director, Animal Welfare Division,
          American Veterinary Medical Association....................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     8
        Goodall, Jane, Ph.D., DBE, Founder, The Jane Goodall
          Institute, UN Messenger of Peace...........................    32
            Prepared statement of....................................    34
            Response to questions submitted for the record...........    35
        Hogan, Matt, Executive Director, Association of Fish and
          Wildlife Agencies..........................................    25
            Prepared statement of....................................    26
            Response to questions submitted for the record...........    28
        Pacelle, Wayne, President and CEO, Humane Society of the
          United States..............................................    50
            Prepared statement of....................................    52
            Response to questions submitted for the record...........    62
        Perez, Benito A., Chief, Law Enforcement, Fish and Wildlife
          Service, U.S. Department of the Interior...................    47
            Prepared statement of....................................    48
        Ross, Steve, Supervisor of Behavioral and Cognitive Research,
          and Chair, AZA Chimpanzee Species Survival Plan, Lincoln
          Park Zoo...................................................    63
            Prepared statement of....................................    64
            Response to questions submitted for the record...........    67
        Schoenke, Ray, President, American Hunters and Shooters
          Association................................................    22
            Prepared statement of....................................    23
        Wissinger, Lewis ``Skip,'' Criminal Investigator (Retired),
          Shenandoah National Park...................................    18
            Prepared statement of....................................    20

    Additional materials supplied:
        Archery Trade Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife
          Agencies, Bear Trust International, et al., Letter
          submitted for the record...................................    73
        Garshelis, Dr. David L., Co-Chair IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist
          Group, Bear Project Leader, Minnesota Department of Natural
          Resources, Adjunct Professor, University of Minnesota,
          Statement submitted for the record.........................    76

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2964, CAPTIVE PRIMATE SAFETY ACT; AND H.R.
                       5534, BEAR PROTECTION ACT OF 2008.

                                  ----------

                            Tuesday, March 11, 2008

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                 Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Madeleine
    Bordallo [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bordallo, Brown, Capps, and Young.
        Also present: Representatives Grijalva and Wittman.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. MADELEINE BORDALLO, A DELEGATE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM

        Ms. Bordallo. Good morning. The legislative hearing by the
    Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans will come to
    order.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on two
    bills that amend the Lacey Act amendments of 1981: H.R. 2964,
    the Captive Primate Safety Act and H.R. 5534, the Bear
    Protection Act of 2008.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 4[g], the Chairman and the
    Ranking Minority Member will make opening statements.
        The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans meets
    this morning to hear testimony regarding two bills to amend the
    Lacey Act amendments of 1981: to provide protections for
    nonhuman primates and bears.
        The first is H.R. 2964, which would prohibit the interstate
    trade of nonhuman primates. While infant primates often seem
    endearing and adorable, they do grow up to become stronger and
    more aggressive. During the last decade there were 100
    incidents reported of human injury by these animals, about 30
    of which involved children. Additionally, nonhuman primates are
    vectors for diseases, including herpes-B, tuberculosis, and the
    Ebola virus.
        The purpose of the bill is to limit the interstate movement
    of these animals to diminish chances of injury and disease
    spread, thereby protecting human health and safety.
        Second, I commend my colleague, Congressman Raul Grijalva,
    for introducing H.R. 5534, which would prohibit the import,
    export, and interstate trade in bear viscera, particularly the
    gall bladder and the bile, which are coveted in traditional
    Asian medicines.
        Specifically, the Bear Protection Act would amend the Lacey
    Act amendments of 1981 to extend its protection to bears
    illegally harvested for their viscera, in the same manner as it
    protects prohibited wildlife species.
        Currently a patchwork of U.S. state laws increases the
    likelihood that illegally poached bear viscera will enter into
    domestic and international trade. The Bear Protection Act is
    intended to serve as a Federal backstop to aid the states in
    enforcing their own wildlife laws. While it will not address
    the multi-faceted problem of bear poaching internationally, it
    is an important first step.
        In short, the Captive Primate Safety Act and the Bear
    Protection Act are intended to protect the welfare of nonhuman
    primates and bears, respectively, but also to protect human
    health and safety in the United States.
        As our planet becomes smaller with increasing trade, the
    repercussions of how we choose to protect our wildlife here in
    the United States will be felt globally. These bills can be an
    important tool in that effect.
        And now, as Chairwoman, I recognize Mr. Brown, the Ranking
    Republican Member, for any statement that he may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:]

         Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Chairwoman,
                 Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans

        The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans meets this
    morning to hear testimony regarding two bills to amend the Lacey Act
    Amendments of 1981 to provide protections for non-human primates and
    bears.
        The first is H.R. 2964, which would prohibit the interstate trade
    of nonhuman primates. While infant primates often seem endearing and
    adorable, they do grow up to become stronger and more aggressive.
    During the last decade, there were one hundred incidents reported of
    human injury by these animals, about thirty of which involved children.
    Additionally, nonhuman primates are vectors for diseases, including
    Herpes B, tuberculosis, and the Ebola virus. The purpose of the bill is
    to limit the interstate movement of these animals to diminish chances
    of injury and disease spread, thereby protecting human health and
    safety.
        Second, I commend my colleague, Congressman Raul Grijalva, for
    introducing H.R. 5534, which would prohibit the import, export, and
    interstate trade in bear viscera, particularly the gallbladder and
    bile, which are coveted in traditional Asian medicines. Specifically,
    the Bear Protection Act would amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to
    extend its protections to bears illegally harvested for their viscera
    in the same manner as it protects prohibited wildlife species.
    Currently, a patchwork of U.S. State laws increases the likelihood that
    illegally poached bear viscera will enter into domestic and
    international trade. The Bear Protection Act is intended to serve as a
    federal backstop to aid the States in enforcing their own wildlife
    laws. While it will not address the multifaceted problem of bear
    poaching internationally, it is an important first step.
        In short, the Captive Primate Safety Act and the Bear Protection
    Act are intended to protect the welfare of nonhuman primates and bears,
    respectively, but also to protect human health and safety in the United
    States. As our planet becomes smaller with increasing trade, the
    repercussions of how we choose to protect our wildlife here in the
    United States will be felt globally. These bills can be an important
    tool in that effort.
                                     ______

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. HENRY E. BROWN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

        Mr. Brown. Good morning. Thanks, Madame Chairman.
        Today we will hear testimony on two wildlife bills that
    amends the Lacey Act by mandating new, far-reaching
    requirements on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Just two weeks ago we examined a budget request to the Fish
    and Wildlife Service, and learned that a number of special
    agents within the Law Enforcement Division has declined by
    nearly 10 percent in the last two years.
        At the same time, Congress has continued to mandate
    additional law enforcement responsibilities, and we would
    significantly increase that burden with the enactment of these
    two bills. In fact, we seem to be ever expanding their mission
    without giving them either the people or the resources to
    accomplish their job.
        In terms of H.R. 2964, I share the concerns raised by the
    Department of the Interior that regulation of the primate pet
    industry is a state, and not a Federal, issue. While I have
    heard from some of my constituents who support this
    legislation, including the Grand Strand Humane Society, and I
    agree that big cats and nonhuman primates make terrible pets,
    the State of South Carolina should retain the right to ban or
    restrict that ownership in the future.
        The primary purpose of the Fish and Wildlife Service is
    wildlife conservation, and this fundamental goal is not
    enhanced by requiring them to spend their precious resources
    regulating the pet trade. In fact, if you look at actual
    statistics and not just press releases, you will find that far
    more Americans are injured each year by pet dogs than pet
    primates. Yet I haven't heard anyone suggest we should amend
    the Lacey Act to add man's best friend as a prohibited species.
        We are all aware of the highly publicized incident in
    Bakersfield, California, where a 62-year-old man was savagely
    attacked and seriously injured by two chimpanzees. While this
    was a terrible attack, it happened at a certified sanctuary,
    and not at a private residence. And by the way, this sanctuary
    is exempt under this legislation. In fact, the vast majority of
    documented injuries have occurred at facilities not even
    covered by H.R. 2964.
        In terms of H.R. 5534, which was just introduced, my
    concerns are similar. There are 34 states that have already
    banned the trade in bear organs, and the regulation of bear
    viscera is inherently a State Wildlife management issue.
        Second, the highly respected World Wildlife Fund has
    completed a comprehensive report in the black, which concludes
    that black bear numbers appear to be stable and increasing
    across their range; and that enforcement of such a ban could
    distract from the conservation of other species that are far
    more endangered or threatened by trade.
        It is disappointing that these experts were not invited to
    testify today.
        Finally, I am interested in hearing what additional
    statutory authority H.R. 5534 will give to the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service above and beyond what they already have under
    the Lacey Act.
        I am sure there is no one on this committee who supports
    illegal trade in bear parts. The question is whether the state
    or the Federal government has the expertise, resources,
    manpower, and the historical responsibility to effectively
    perform this management job.
        Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I look forward to hearing the
    testimony this morning.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

      Statement of The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Republican
             Member, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans

        Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, today, we will hear testimony on
    two wildlife bills that amend the Lacey Act by mandating new far
    reaching requirements on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Just two weeks ago, we examined the budget request of the Fish and
    Wildlife Service and learned that the number of special agents within
    the Law Enforcement Division has declined by nearly ten percent in the
    last two years. At the same time, Congress has continued to mandate
    additional law enforcement responsibilities and we would significantly
    increase that burden with the enactment of these two bills. In fact, we
    seem to be ever expanding their mission without giving them either the
    people or the resources to accomplish their job.
        In terms of H.R. 2964, I share the concerns raised by the
    Department of the Interior that the regulation of the primate pet
    industry is a state and not federal issue. While I have heard from some
    of my constituents who support this legislation, including the Grand
    Strand Humane Society, and I agree that big cats and nonhuman primates
    make terrible pets, the State of South Carolina should retain the right
    to ban or restrict their ownership in the future.
        The primary purpose of the Fish and Wildlife Service is wildlife
    conservation and this fundamental goal is not enhanced by requiring
    them to spend their precious resources regulating the pet trade.
        In fact, if you look at the actual statistics and not just press
    releases, you will find that far more Americans are injured each year
    by pet dogs than pet primates. Yet, I haven't heard anyone suggest we
    should amend the Lacey Act to add man's best friend as a prohibited
    species.
        We are all aware of the highly publicized incident in Bakersfield,
    California where a 62-year old man was savagely attacked and seriously
    injured by two chimpanzees. While this was a terrible attack, it
    happened at a certified sanctuary and not at a private residence and by
    the way this sanctuary is exempt under this legislation. In fact, the
    vast majority of documented injures have occurred at facilities not
    even covered by H.R. 2964.
        In terms of H.R. 5534, which was just introduced, my concerns are
    similar. There are thirty four states that have already banned the
    trade in bear organs and the regulation of bear viscera is inherently a
    state wildlife management issue.
        Second, the highly respected World Wildlife Fund has completed a
    comprehensive Report ``In the Black'' which concluded that ``Black bear
    numbers appear to be stable and increasing across their range and that
    the enforcement of such a ban could detract from the conservation of
    other species that are far more endangered or threatened by trade''. It
    is disappointing that these experts were not invited to testify today.
        Finally, I am interested in hearing what additional statutory
    authority, H.R. 5534, will give to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    above and beyond what they already have under the Lacey Act.
        I am sure there is no one on this Committee who supports the
    illegal trade in bear parts. The question is whether the states or the
    federal government has the expertise, resources, manpower and inherent
    historical responsibility to effectively perform this management job.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
                                     ______

        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Brown, for your opening
    statements.
        Since this hearing room is rather limited in seating and I
    see a lot of people standing, would you please come forward?
    You can take these seats around the table here. It is probably
    going to be a lengthy hearing, so I would hate to see you stand
    the entire time. Thank you.
        I would now like to ask unanimous consent that the
    gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, be allowed to join the
    members of the Subcommittee on the dais and participating in
    the hearing. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Grijalva, being the sponsor of H.R. 5534, would you
    like to make any remarks before the Subcommittee?
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Madame Chair and Ranking
    Member Brown, for your courtesy in allowing me to be part of
    this hearing.
        First of all, I want to thank you for agreeing to hear H.R.
    5534, and join with you in welcoming our distinguished guests
    and their testimony.
        H.R. 5534, the Bear Protection Act of 2008, would establish
    a national prohibition on the import, export, and interstate
    commerce in bear viscera, such as bear gall bladders. The bile
    from bear gall bladders is used in traditional Asian medicines
    to treat a variety of illnesses, from diabetes to heart
    disease, as well as in some cosmetics and shampoos. Asian
    demand for bear viscera and products has increased with growing
    human population, and increased well.
        Although humane alternatives clearly exist, including
    herbal substitutes approved by the traditional Asian medicine
    community and synthetic formulations, huge profits can be made
    selling endangered bear parts in Asia. Dwindling Asian bear
    populations have caused poachers to look to American bears to
    meet market demand for bear parts and products.
        While each year more than 30,000 American Black Bears are
    legally hunted in North America, some estimates suggest the
    number illegally killed by poachers may equal or exceed that
    number. Law enforcement agents report finding dead bears in
    this country with only the gall bladders and paws removed, and
    the rest of the carcass left to rot in the woods.
        Bears that have been radio-collared for scientific purposes
    are particularly vulnerable, as are bears hibernating in dens
    during the winter. Organized poaching gangs use sophisticated
    technology, such as radio tracking and night-vision goggles, to
    corner their prey.
        According to a police officer who videotaped poaching
    activity involving a bear cub repeatedly stabbed, then set upon
    by dogs after its mother's gall bladder had been removed,
    remarked, ``The cruelty was beyond our expectations.''
        The current patchwork of state laws addressing the bear-
    parts trade creates an enforcement nightmare. Thirty-four
    states prohibit trade in bear gall bladders and bile; five
    states allow it freely, and others have a complex mesh of
    either no regulations or laws that prohibit trade of bear parts
    from bears taken in state, but allow commercialization of bear
    parts if the bear was killed elsewhere. There is an incentive
    to kill bears illegally in one state because individuals can
    then sell the parts legally in another state, completely
    circumventing the state laws that do prohibit the sale of bear
    parts in some states.
        Because the illegal trade in bear parts crosses state and
    national boundaries, a Federal remedy is needed. The patchwork
    of state law creates loopholes that are exploited by those
    engaged in the bear-parts trade. The loopholes enable poachers
    to launder gall bladders through states that permit their sale,
    often escaping effective prosecution even when they are caught.
        The Bear Protection Act would assist local and state law
    enforcement by establishing national prohibition on import,
    export, and interstate commerce in bear viscera. The Bear
    Protection Act is focused on deterring bear poaching, and
    prosecuting bear poachers and bear-parts traders.
        The bill in no way impacts lawful hunting under applicable
    state laws, including the keeping of bear trophies; nor does it
    impact a state's ability to set hunt seasons, hunt methods, or
    bag limits.
        Thank you again, Madame Chair, and members of the committee
    for agreeing to hear this bill, which deals with, I believe, a
    very important subject matter.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Grijalva. And I
    would now like to recognize our first panel of witnesses.
        Dr. Gail Golab, Director of the Animal Welfare Division,
    American Veterinary Medical Association; Dr. Sian Evans,
    Managing Director of the DuMond Conservancy; Mr. Lewis ``Skip''
    Wissinger, Retired Criminal Investigator at the Shenandoah
    National Park; Mr. Ray Schoenke, President of the National
    Hunters and Shooters Association; Mr. Matt Hogan, the Executive
    Director of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; and
    finally, Dr. Jane Goodall, Founder of the Jane Goodall
    Institute and the U.N. Messenger of Peace.
        I want to thank you all, all of the witnesses, for being
    here today. And I would like to express our pleasure in having
    Dr. Goodall as a witness this morning. She will be joining is a
    bit late, but should arrive in time to give her prepared
    statement at the end of this panel.
        I will start by recognizing our first witness this morning,
    Dr. Golab, to testify for five minutes. And I would note for
    all witnesses that the timing lights on the table will indicate
    when your time has concluded. And we would appreciate your
    cooperation in complying with the limits that have been set, as
    we have many witnesses to hear from today. And I would add that
    this committee does watch the timing light.
        Be assured that your full written statement will be
    submitted for the hearing record.
        Dr. Golab.

       STATEMENT OF GAIL GOLAB, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, ANIMAL WELFARE
           DIVISION, AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Golab. Thank you, Madame Chairperson and members of
    this subcommittee, for giving the American Veterinary Medical
    Association the opportunity to speak in support of the Captive
    Primate Safety Act, H.R. 2964.
        I am Dr. Gail Golab, Director of the AVMA's Animal Welfare
    Division. The AVMA represents more than 76,000 U.S.
    veterinarians who protect the health and welfare of our
    nation's animals, help conserve endangered species, and prevent
    and control zoonotic diseases.
        Nearly 600 of our members work with wildlife in natural or
    zoologic settings, 1,000 work in biomedical research, and 300
    spend at least 50 percent of their time with exotic pets.
    Approximately 170 AVMA members have contact with nonhuman
    primates on a regular basis.
        As a preface to our testimony, I emphasize that the AVMA
    fully supports the animal health professionals who work with
    nonhuman primates in conservation and biomedical research. As
    you can imagine, it is one thing to work with these animals in
    settings where there are appropriate enclosures and trained
    personnel, and quite another when they are kept in the backyard
    or living room of an unqualified individual. In fact, more than
    80 percent of health and behavioral issues with nonhuman
    primates arise from those that are kept as pets.
        AVMA policy fully supports limiting or prohibiting private
    ownership of wild animals that pose a substantial risk to
    public health, domestic animal health, the ecosystem, or whose
    welfare is unacceptably compromised.
        Because nonhuman primates pose these risks, the AVMA
    supports limiting or prohibiting private ownership of these
    animals. Furthermore, the AVMA does not support the use of
    nonhuman primates as service animals.
        The risk posed by nonhuman primates maintained by private
    individuals fall into four broad categories: Inadequate
    husbandry, physical injury, disease transmission, and ecosystem
    concerns. It is estimated that more than 15,000 nonhuman
    primates are privately owned in the United States today.
        Nonhuman primates are highly intelligent and social.
    Captive environments provided by private owners cannot meet the
    complex physical and behavioral needs of these species. It also
    can be difficult to identify veterinarians who are not only
    qualified, but willing to care for nonhuman primates kept as
    pets.
        To create suitable pets, baby primates may be removed from
    their mothers when only days old, and both exhibit signs of
    depression as a result of this forced separation. As nonhuman
    primates reach sexual maturity, their behavior becomes
    unpredictable and aggressive. Nonhuman primates can also be
    very destructive in home environments.
        To deal with these problems, many owners resort to
    restrictive confinement. This conflicts with the social needs
    of most nonhuman primates.
        Given good care and nutrition, nonhuman primates may live
    from 25 to more than 50 years. Many primate owners are not able
    to make a lifelong commitment to a dog or cat, let alone a pet
    as challenging as a nonhuman primate. Zoos don't have the space
    for former pets, and sanctuaries are over-burdened.
        Nonhuman primates can also seriously injury their human
    caretakers and other domestic animals. Reviews of injuries
    inflicted by nonhuman primates indicate that severe
    lacerations, wound infections, and permanent complications were
    the result of one third of bites.
        Between 1995 and 2005 there were 132 incidents of human
    injury caused by captive primates or escapes by captive
    primates in the United States. Most injuries occur when
    nonhuman primates have contact with people other than their
    owners or trained caretakers. Some nonhuman primates acquired
    as pets are purchased over the internet or during weekend
    events, and the probability of contact with unfamiliar and
    untrained individuals increases during these activities and the
    associated interstate transport.
        Each species of nonhuman primate also has the capacity to
    spread illnesses to humans and other animals. Transmission of
    exotic disease is bidirectional, and nonhuman primates are
    highly susceptible to some common human pathogens.
        Like humans, nonhuman primates may acquire bacterial
    infections, including salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis.
    Tuberculosis is especially common among macaques and their
    owners. Nonhuman primates also carry viruses, such as herpes-B,
    polio, yellow fever, and pox viruses, including monkeypox and
    chickenpox. Herpes-B virus is highly prevalent in around 80
    percent to 90 percent of macaques, and can cause a fatal
    meningoencephalitis in people.
        New world monkeys can carry and acquire the measles virus,
    which is easily contracted and transmitted by young children
    and the elderly. Nonhuman primates and people share fungal and
    parasitic diseases, as well.
        Finally, nonhuman primates that are released into the wild
    may naturalize. Once established, nonhuman primates can become
    reservoirs of disease, may contaminate water supplies, present
    risk of injury for people, livestock, and pets, and may destroy
    public and private property.
        Although importing nonhuman primates into the United States
    for the pet trade has been banned by Federal legislation since
    1975, and many states prohibit keeping these animals as pets, a
    vigorous trade in these animals remains. Federal legislation is
    needed because many nonhuman primates move via interstate
    commerce.
        The AVMA supports this legislation, and is pleased to
    continue to work with Members of Congress on its behalf.
        I thank you for the opportunity to appear today.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Golab follows:]

                 Statement of Gail Golab, PhD, DVM, Director,
        Animal Welfare Division, American Veterinary Medical Association

        Thank you, Madam Chairperson and members of the Subcommittee, for
    giving the American Veterinary Medical Association the opportunity to
    speak in support of the Captive Primate Safety Act, H.R. 2964.
        I am Dr. Gail Golab, Director of the American Veterinary Medical
    Association's Animal Welfare Division. The AVMA represents more than
    76,000 U.S. veterinarians engaged in every aspect of veterinary
    medicine and public health. Among other things, our members protect the
    health and welfare of our nation's animals, help conserve endangered
    species, and protect animal and human health through prevention and
    control of zoonotic diseases. Nearly 600 of our members work with
    wildlife in natural or zoologic settings, 1,000 of our members work in
    biomedical research, and 300 spend at least 50% of their time working
    with exotic pets. Within these environments, we have approximately 170
    members who work with or come into contact with nonhuman primates on a
    regular basis. Other veterinarians work at federal agencies, such as
    the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control
    and Prevention, where they deal with the implications of diseases
    affecting human health that originate in nonhuman primates.
        As a preface to our testimony, I emphasize that arguments presented
    by the AVMA herein are applicable only to the private ownership of
    nonhuman primates by unlicensed individuals. The AVMA fully supports
    animal health professionals who work with nonhuman primates in
    conservation and biomedical research efforts. As you can imagine, it is
    one thing to work with these animals in settings in which there are
    appropriate enclosures and trained personnel and quite another when
    they are kept in the backyard or living room of an unqualified
    individual. The data support this belief: according to the Captive Wild
    Animal Protection Coalition,\1\ more than 80% of health and behavioral
    issues with nonhuman primates arise from those that are kept as pets.
        AVMA policy, based on considerable research and deliberation,
    supports limiting or prohibiting private ownership of indigenous and
    non-native wild animals that pose a substantial risk to public health,
    domestic animal health, or the ecosystem, or whose welfare is
    unacceptably compromised.\2\ The AVMA thereby supports related
    regulatory efforts to limit or prohibit private ownership, and
    importation for the purpose of private ownership, of such indigenous
    and non-native wild animals. Because nonhuman primates pose significant
    risks to the health of the public and domestic animals--including the
    possibility of severe injury to the humans and domestic animals with
    which they come in contact--the AVMA opposes private ownership of these
    animals. Furthermore, the AVMA also does not support the use of
    nonhuman primates as assistance or service animals because of animal
    welfare concerns, the potential for serious injury, and zoonotic
    risks.\3\ Risks of human injury and zoonotic disease are often greatest
    in the very populations such animals serve.
        The risks posed to and by nonhuman primates maintained by private
    individuals fall into four broad categories: inadequate husbandry,
    physical injury to humans and other domestic animals, disease
    transmission, and ecosystem concerns. Precise numbers are difficult to
    elucidate, but Born Free USA and the Captive Wild Animal Protection
    Coalition estimate\4\ that more than 15,000 nonhuman primates are owned
    by private individuals in the United States today. Raising and training
    these animals is complex, and most private owners are inexperienced in
    meeting related challenges. Privately owned nonhuman primates have
    attacked humans and other animals, and they have escaped from their
    cages to roam freely in communities.\5\
        Nonhuman primates are highly intelligent and social animals that
    present unique husbandry challenges. Most captive environments cannot
    meet the complex physical and behavioral needs of these species.
    Monkeys need large, secure enclosures and specialized diets, and they
    must be provided with a variety of ever-changing toys and exercise
    equipment to keep them challenged and stimulated.\6\ If multiple
    nonhuman primates are kept, consideration must be given to providing
    sufficient numbers of food and water stations, an adequate number and
    appropriate type of nest boxes, and visual barriers that prevent direct
    eye contact with dominant animals. Sanitation can become a significant
    issue because monkeys are not easily housebroken and will often remove
    diapers that are applied in an effort to control excreta.\7\ It can
    also be difficult to identify veterinarians who are not only qualified,
    but willing to care for nonhuman primates kept as pets. As one board-
    certified zoo veterinarian told us, ``I am very comfortable working
    with primates in zoo and laboratory settings, but I refuse to work with
    primates in private practice settings because of concerns for the
    safety of my staff and myself due to bites and disease.''
        To create suitable pets, baby primates may be taken away from their
    mothers when only hours or days old. Evolved to have continual body
    contact with their moms, infant primates will cling to towels or
    stuffed animals as substitutes, and both mothers and infants often
    exhibit signs of depression as a result of forced separation.\8\ \9\
    \10\ Infant females taken away from their mothers don't develop the
    parental skills necessary to raise their own young, and this initiates
    a vicious cycle of rejected infants that must be raised by people to
    physically survive.\11\ When young, nonhuman primates are dependent on
    their natural mother or a surrogate human and are generally
    cooperative; however, as they reach sexual maturity, their behavior
    becomes more unpredictable and aggressive.\12\ The response of the
    private owner to changed behavior may be to reduce contact with the
    nonhuman primate. In addition, nonhuman primates can be very
    destructive in home environments and will shred furniture, curtains,
    clothes, and other personal belongings; turn on faucets; and unlock and
    open doors.\13\ A typical private owner's response to this behavior is
    more restrictive confinement. The isolation resulting from both owner
    behaviors directly conflicts with the psychological needs of most
    nonhuman primates, which tend to live in social groups.\14\
        Given good care and proper nutrition, nonhuman primates have long
    lifespans. Twenty-five to 30 years is not unusual for smaller species,
    while macaques, baboons, and spider monkeys can reach 40 years old, and
    apes 55. Many private owners are not able to make a life-long
    commitment to common domestic pets, let alone a pet as challenging as a
    nonhuman primate. Zoos don't have the space for nonhuman primates that
    were formerly pets, and sanctuaries are overburdened.\12\ Furthermore,
    once a nonhuman primate has been hand-raised to adulthood by people, it
    can be difficult or impossible to reintroduce it into a peer group.\15\
    \16\ If an introduction can be accomplished without the former pet
    being harassed, intimidated or attacked, the nonhuman primate may still
    remain a social outcast. Neurotic behavior and depression can be the
    consequences of such alienation.
        Make no mistake about it, nonhuman primates kept as pets--while
    cute, cuddly, and often very entertaining--can also pose serious injury
    risks for their human caretakers and other domestic animals. Infant
    primates may seem adorable, but as they grow larger, they become
    stronger and more aggressive. Many nonhuman primates exhibit
    unpredictable behavior as they mature; males can become aggressive, and
    both males and females will strike, scratch, and bite to defend
    themselves and establish their place in the hierarchy of their peer
    group or surrogate human family.\17\ Reviews of bite injuries inflicted
    to humans by nonhuman primates indicate that severe lacerations, wound
    infections, and permanent complications (e.g., muscle contractures,
    osteomyelitis) resulted in 33% of cases.\18\ \19\ Nonhuman primates are
    proportionately much stronger than human beings, and as a result, the
    risk of unintentional injury is high.
        The Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition reported that between
    January 1, 1995 and January 1, 2005 there were 132 incidents of human
    injury caused by captive primates or escapes by captive primates in the
    United States.\5\ More incidents may have occurred but not been
    reported. Deprived of social relationships with other nonhuman primates
    (as often happens when nonhuman primates are kept as pets), it is not
    unusual for nonhuman primates to become highly bonded to their owners.
    They may attack unfamiliar individuals,\17\ and in fact, most injuries
    occur when nonhuman primates have contact with people other than their
    owners or trained caretakers. Although many nonhuman primates are
    purchased from licensed breeders or brokers, some nonhuman primates
    acquired as pets are purchased over the Internet or during weekend
    events. The probability of contact with unfamiliar and untrained
    individuals increases during such activities and during associated
    interstate transport.
        In addition to inadequate husbandry concerns and human and domestic
    animal injury risks, nonhuman primates can and do spread viral,
    bacterial, fungal, and parasitic diseases. Each species of nonhuman
    primate has the capacity to introduce or spread illnesses that threaten
    human and domestic animal heath. Transmission of zoonotic disease is,
    of course, bidirectional and nonhuman primates are highly susceptible
    to some common human viral, bacterial, and fungal pathogens. An example
    is transmission of herpes simplex virus to marmosets as a result of
    private owners kissing or breathing on their nonhuman primate pets.
    Although herpes simplex infections in humans may cause disease as mild
    as a cold sore, in marmosets exposure to the virus can result in acute
    disseminated disease with neurologic involvement and a high fatality
    rate.\20\
        Like humans, all of the more than more than 240 species of extant
    nonhuman primates are susceptible to bacterial infections, including
    tuberculosis, salmonellosis, shigellosis, and campylobacter.\21\
    Tuberculosis is especially common among macaques\22\ and their owners.
    New world monkeys (mostly frugivores) are prime candidates for
    infection with water-borne, gram-negative bacteria, such as
    klebsiella.\21\ Primates infected with klebsiella pose a special danger
    to human infants and children with mild respiratory infections.
        Nonhuman primates also carry viruses, such as Herpes B, Simian
    Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), polio, yellow fever, and poxviruses
    (including monkeypox and chickenpox) that can be passed to other
    nonhuman primates and to people. Herpes B virus, which is subject to
    both bite and airborne transmission, is highly prevalent (80-90%) \23\
    in adult macaques and can cause a potentially fatal meningoencephalitis
    in people. The Marburg virus affects both nonhuman primates and people,
    and causes a hemorrhagic fever, which is rare, but fatal in 23-25% of
    human cases;\24\ case fatality rates in nonhuman primates are up to
    100%. Although the Marburg virus is indigenous to Africa, a healthy
    black market trade in nonhuman primates\25\ creates an ever-present
    risk of importation into the United States. New world monkeys can carry
    and acquire the measles virus,\26\ which is easily contracted and
    transmitted by young children and the elderly. All four poxviruses are
    found in new world monkeys, with monkeypox being the most frequent.\21\
    Viral hepatitis A is common in capuchins, owl monkeys, and tamarins.
    Often undetectable in these monkeys, the disease can still be passed to
    humans and primate handlers often contract this virus from recently
    shipped animals.\21\ In addition, live rabies vaccines that are
    manufactured for dogs and cats, and sometimes inappropriately
    administered to nonhuman primates, can cause rabies in old world
    monkeys, which can then be spread to humans.\21\
        Nonhuman primates and people share fungal and parasitic diseases as
    well.\27\ Although not common, fungal diseases of potential concern
    include streptothricosis (a skin infection), candidiasis (an infection
    of the mucous membranes), and ringworm. Many primates harbor parasites
    that are easily transmitted to people, including protozoa, nematodes
    (elongated cylindrical worms), tapeworms, and arthropods (lice, mites,
    and fleas). Giardia, a protozoan parasite that reproduces in the small
    intestine, can cause recurrent diarrhea in both nonhuman primates and
    people, although clinical signs are often not apparent in the
    former.\28\ Amebiasis, a disease caused by another zoonotic protozoan
    parasite, may result in no clinical signs or protracted diarrhea from
    chronic colitis and, occasionally, abscesses in the brain, liver, and/
    or lungs.\21\
        Finally, keeping of nonhuman primates by private individuals
    presents ecologic risks. Nonhuman primates that are intentionally
    released into the wild or that unintentionally escape from their human
    caretakers may naturalize, particularly in warm, southern states. Once
    established, these nonhuman primates have the potential to become
    reservoirs of disease (e.g., yellow fever), may contaminate water
    supplies, present risks of injury for humans and domestic animals
    (e.g., livestock, pets), and may destroy private and public property,
    including crops cultivated for human consumption.
        As described in our testimony, nonhuman primates maintained by
    private individuals pose serious husbandry, physical injury, disease-
    transmission, and ecologic risks. Although importing nonhuman primates
    to the United States for the pet trade has been banned by federal
    regulation since 1975 and many states already prohibit keeping these
    animals as pets, a vigorous trade in these animals remains. Federal
    legislation is needed because many of these animals move via interstate
    commerce.
        This bipartisan bill amends the Lacey Act to prohibit transporting
    monkeys, great apes, lemurs, and other nonhuman primates across state
    lines, much like the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, passed unanimously in
    2003, did for tigers and other big cats. This bill has no impact on
    trade or transport of animals for zoos, medical and other licensed
    research facilities, veterinarians, or certain other licensed and
    regulated entities. As such, the AVMA supports this legislation and
    looks forward to continue working with Members of Congress on its
    behalf.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and speak
    on behalf of this important legislation.
    References
        \1\ 153 Cong Rec S13520 (2007)
        \2\ 2American Veterinary Medical Association. Private ownership of
    wild animals. Available at: www.avma.org/issues/policy/
    wild_animal_ownership.asp. Accessed March 5, 2008.
        \3\ American Veterinary Medical Association. Nonhuman primates as
    assistance animals. Available at: www.avma.org/issues/policy/
    nonhuman_primates.asp. Accessed March 5, 2008.
        \4\ Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition. Congress urged to
    move swiftly on bill to protect primates. Available at: www.cwapc.org/
    pr/pr_20050316_Primate
    Bill.html. Accessed March 5, 2008.
        \5\ Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition. Primate incidents
    1995-2005. Available at: www.cwapc.org/pr/download/
    PrimateIncidents1995-2005.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2008.
        \6\ University of Missouri Office of Animal Resources.
    Environmental enrichment. Available at: oar.missouri.edu/OAR_WEB$/osop/
    sopDocs/Environmental_enrich
    ment/General_Environmental_Enrichment.doc. Accessed March 5, 2008.
        \7\ University of Wisconsin-Madison Veterinary Medical Teaching
    Hospital. Do monkeys make good pets? Available at:
    vmthpub.vetmed.wisc.edu/sa_services/special_species/faq.htm. Accessed
    March 5, 2008.
        \8\ Willner P. The validity of models of animal models of
    depression. Psychopharmacology 1984;83(1):1-16.
        \9\ Hoff MP, Nadler RD, Hoff KT, et al. Separation and depression
    in infant gorillas. Developmental Psychobiology 1994;27:439-452.
        \10\ Kaufman IC, Rosenblum LA. The reaction to separation in infant
    monkeys: anaclitic depression and conservation-withdrawal.
    Psychosomatic Medicine 1967;29:648-675.
        \11\ Harlow HF, Harlow MK, Dodsworth RO, et al. Maternal behavior
    of rhesus monkeys deprived of mothering and peer associations in
    infancy. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society
    1966;110(1):58.
        \12\ Porton I, Carter S, Beck B, et al. Bedtime for Bonzo: the real
    bedtime story. Available at: www.honoluluzoo.org/pets.htm. Accessed
    March 5, 2008.
        \13\ Primate Info Net. Are you sure you want a monkey? (reprinted
    from Monkey Matters Magazine). Available at: pin.primate.wisc.edu/
    aboutp/pets/areyousure.html. Accessed March 5, 2008.
        \14\ Anthropology Program, Department of Behavioral Sciences,
    Palomar College, California. Social structure. Available at:
    anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_2.htm. Accessed March 5, 2008.
        \15\ Meder A. Integration of hand-reared gorillas into breeding
    groups. Zoo Biology 1990;9:157-164.
        \16\ Inglett BJ, French JA, Simmons LG, et al. Dynamics of
    intrafamily aggression and social reintegration in lion tamarins. Zoo
    Biology 2005;8:67-78.
        \17\ Hevesi R. Welfare and health implications for primates kept as
    pets. In: Born to be wild: primates are not pets. International Fund
    for Animal Welfare. Available at: www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dfiles/
    file_553.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2008.
        \18\ Goldstein EJC, Pryor EP, Citron DM. Simian bites and bacterial
    infection. Clin Infect Dis 1995;20:1551-1552.
        \19\ Janda DH, Ringler DH, Hilliard JK, et al. Nonhuman primate
    bites. J Orthop Res 1990;8:146-150.
        \20\ Lefaux B, Duprez R, Tanguy M, et al. Nonhuman primates might
    be highly susceptible to cross-species infectivity by human alpha-
    herpesviruses. Vet Pathol 2004;41(3):302-304.
        \21\ Renquist DM, Whitney RA. Zoonoses acquired from pet primates.
    Vet Clin North Am: Sm Anim Pract 1987;17(1):219-240.
        \22\ Willis J, Webb JL, LeRoy BE, et al. An overview of
    tuberculosis in macaques. Available at: www.vet.uga.edu/vpp/clerk/
    willis/index.php. Accessed March 5, 2008.
        \23\ Ostrowski SR, Leslie MJ, Parrott T, et al. B-virus from pet
    macaque monkeys: an emerging threat in the United States? Emerg Inf Dis
    1998;4(1):117-121.
        \24\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Marburg
    hemorrhagic fever fact sheet. Available at: www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/
    spb/mnpages/dispages/marburg/qa.htm. Accessed March 5, 2008.
        \25\ Webster D. The looting and smuggling and fencing and hoarding
    of impossibly precious, feathered and scaly wild things: inside the $10
    billion balck market in endangered animals. The New York Times Magazine
    1997;Feb 16: 27-33, 48-50.
        \26\ Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. The psychological
    well-being of nonhuman primates. Washington, DC: National Academies
    Press, 1998; 89.
        \27\ Baskin G. Pathology of nonhuman primates. Available at:
    www.afip.org/vetpath/POLA/nhp.txt. Accessed March 5, 2008.
        \28\ Division of Veterinary Medicine, Walter Reed Army Institute.
    Significant zoonotic disease of non-human primates. Available at:
    netvet.wustl.edu/species/primates/primzoon.txt. Accessed March 5, 2008.
                                     ______

        Ms. Bordallo. I thank you, Dr. Golab, for your excellent
    points regarding H.R. 2964.
        Dr. Evans, it is a pleasure to welcome you before the
    Subcommittee. And you are now recognized to testify for five
    minutes.

               STATEMENT OF SIAN EVANS, Ph.D., DIRECTOR,
                           DuMOND CONSERVANCY

        Ms. Evans. I thank you for the opportunity to testify today
    in opposition of the Captive Primate----
        Ms. Bordallo. Could you put the microphone a little bit
    closer? And before you continue, I would like to welcome
    Congressman Wittman from the State of Virginia.
        Please proceed.
        Ms. Evans. Is this better? OK, thank you.
        My name is Dr. Sian Evans, and I am a scientist. And I have
    over 30 years of experience of studying primates, their
    behavior, and managing them in captivity.
        I am here as a member and representing UAPPEAL, Uniting a
    Proactive Primate and Exotic Animal League. And this is an
    organization of 453 members in 42 states. And it educates
    people who are interested in responsibly sharing their lives
    with pet primates.
        About 25 years ago I had a remarkable experience. I had the
    great privilege to meet a sign language gorilla named Coco.
    Coco lives in California, and she can communicate with humans
    using sign language.
        As I strolled across the lawn to Coco's enclosure, I
    noticed that she was signing vigorously at me, and I was very
    embarrassed. I didn't know what she was trying to tell me. A
    translator said that she was interested to know whether I was
    wearing lipstick--I wasn't--and whether I would pick her a
    flower--and I did. And I was spellbound. She transformed the
    way I thought about wildlife, and in fact nature in general.
        I have a great empathy with members of UAPPEAL that have
    enjoyed a similar experience to mine, with these wonderful
    nonhuman primates that can enter our lives. UAPPEAL members are
    very strongly bonded to their pets, and they also offer a
    lifetime commitment to their care.
        We are here to talk about the Lacey Act and an amendment to
    this Act. The Lacey Act is an Act which seeks to preserve
    wildlife. Now, no nonhuman primates have been allowed to be
    imported into the United States as pets for over 30 years, so
    there is no possibility that infant monkeys being ripped from
    the bodies of their dead mothers in Africa to fuel the pet
    trade in the United States. So this has no conservation benefit
    whatsoever.
        The nonhuman primates are being described as a prohibited
    species. And because of this prohibition, they are not able to
    cross state lines. This has to be justified, and the major
    justification has been that they are a public health threat. I
    strongly disagree with this assertion, and as far as I am
    aware, there is no documentation of pet primates being a threat
    to public health.
        In fact, as primates go, they are remarkably disease-free,
    in large part for having been bred for several generations in
    captivity, and because of the practice of removing many infant
    primates from their species at birth, so they do not acquire
    other diseases.
        I think that we do an enormous disservice to nonhuman
    primates by describing them as dangerous wild animals. Because
    this Act will not substantially decrease the pet trade in
    primates, it will only add a burden to existing law-abiding
    primate owners who seek to transport their primates across
    state lines to obtain adequate veterinary care.
        A very unfortunate consequence of the fear that many people
    have because of the disease transmission in nonhuman primates
    was regrettably demonstrated in 2001, when at Cairo Airport a
    baby gorilla and a baby chimpanzee were intercepted. The
    veterinarians were so frightened of the public health risk that
    they drowned, in a vat of chemicals, both of them. That was a
    direct consequence of irrational fear of public health threats
    from nonhuman primates.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Evans follows:]

                   Statement of Sian Evans, Ph.D., Director,
      DuMond Conservancy for Primates and Tropical Forests, Miami, Florida

        Madam Chairwoman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Dr. Sian
    Evans, a scientist whose 30-year professional career has involved the
    study and captive management of nonhuman primates. I appreciate this
    opportunity to testify today in opposition to H.R. 2964, the Captive
    Primate Safety Act.
        I am a member of and represent a national organization--Uniting a
    Proactive Primate and Exotic Animal League (UAPPEAL)--an organization
    that educates people who are interested in sharing their life with
    nonhuman primates by making them aware of a primate's special needs,
    giving them realistic expectations, and making sure they are willing
    and able to make a lifelong commitment to the nonhuman primates in
    their care. UAPPEAL discourages the casual acquisition of any animals
    and supports fair regulation of animals in regard to animal welfare and
    public safety issues. For many reasons, which I will outline for you
    today, UAPPEAL opposes the Captive Primate Safety Act.
        I received B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in the United Kingdom and
    belong to the following professional organizations; the International
    Primatological Society (IPS), the American Society of Primatologists
    (ASP) the Primate Society of Great Britain and the Association for the
    Study of Animal Behavior. I am the Director of the DuMond Conservancy
    for Primates and Tropical Forests, a not-for-profit organization
    located in Miami, Florida, whose mission is to study, improve the
    captive welfare and preserve nonhuman primates and their habitats. In
    addition to behavioral research, I also have a strong interest in
    education and teach a university course in Primate Biology (which
    includes lectures on nonhuman primate conservation). I was Vice
    President for Education of the International Primatological Society
    from 1996-2000 and served for many years on the Education Committee of
    the American Society of Primatologists.
        There are over two hundred species of non-human primate and over
    eighty percent of them live in tropical rainforests. Thirty per cent of
    primate species are endangered and international authorities consider
    all primate species to be threatened and/or vulnerable. Thus, there is
    every reason to try and protect these magnificent, intelligent near
    relatives. H.R. 2964 would amend the Lacey Act to extend the list of
    ``prohibited wildlife species'' to include all nonhuman primates. The
    bill declares it a prohibited act, for any person, with some
    exceptions, to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or
    purchase in interstate commerce nonhuman primates. The Lacey Act is a
    federal wildlife law that combats the illegal commercial exploitation
    of wildlife and rare plants and allows the federal government to help
    states, tribes and countries around the world safeguard their wildlife
    resources. However, the intent of this bill is an attempt to limit
    private ownership of primates.
        As the geographical range of nonhuman primates does not include the
    United States and the importation of primates as pets is prohibited
    under a U.S. Public Health Service quarantine regulation adopted in
    1975, all nonhuman primate pets are required by law to be captive born.
    Furthermore, the interstate movement of any endangered nonhuman primate
    species is already federally regulated by the U.S. Department of the
    Interior and so, the restrictions created by this bill appears to be
    duplicative for those nonhuman primates in greatest need of protection.
    It is an undisputable fact that this bill serves no conservation
    purpose whatsoever.
        Because my own academic research and subsequent behavioral studies
    of nonhuman primates have required the management of monkey colonies, I
    have a great deal of experience with primates that require intensive
    individual care (for health or behavioral reasons) and in hand-raising
    infants rejected by their parents. Consequently, nonhuman primate
    owners often consult me with questions regarding health and husbandry.
    While I am not an advocate of primate pet ownership, I do not support
    the enactment of legislation that would create unnecessary burdens for
    pet owners or make it harder for them to care for their pets. My own
    life has been enormously enriched by the close contact I have
    experienced with most of the common monkey species. In fact, I have
    learned a great deal about some aspects of primate behavior available
    only to those private owners who chose to live in close contact with
    them in the private sector.
        The justifications that have been proposed in this bill to include
    all nonhuman primate species as prohibited are that they are a threat
    to both public safety and public health and require standards of
    captive care beyond the ability of private owners. However, there is no
    documentation or scientific evidence to support these claims and in my
    experience.
        The claim that primates are a threat to public health is of
    especial concern to me. Public health decisions should be based on the
    highest quality of scientific data, openly and objectively derived. Pet
    primates are not a documented source of disease to humans. Some of this
    absence of zoonotic (animal to human) disease risk has been attributed
    to the frequent practice of removal of pet primates from their species
    shortly after birth and having been bred in captivity for many years
    (and many generations). In fact, it is the pet primates themselves that
    are documented to be susceptible to some human diseases. As a result,
    some veterinarians suggest common childhood immunization, occasional
    tuberculin skin tests and even rabies vaccination (although few, if
    any, pet primates are ever potentially exposed to the bites of rabid
    vectors).
        The disease that is frequently cited as a public health threat by
    opponents of pet primates is infection with a herpes virus, B-virus or
    Herpes simiae. This virus may be found in macaque monkeys and while,
    much like the human cold sore virus, it does not cause any significant
    disease in infected macaques, if it is transmitted to humans it can
    cause fatal encephalitis. However, those that cite this potential
    disease risk from pet primates overlook several well-documented facts.
    This disease is extremely hard to transmit and transmission has only
    occurred in laboratory settings when imported research monkeys are
    stressed and much more likely to be infectious. Also, the practice of
    removing infant macaques from their mothers shortly after birth, almost
    certainly eliminates the possibility that these infant monkeys can
    acquire the virus. The overwhelming majorities of pet macaques are
    screened for and are negative for B-virus. Finally, and most
    importantly, there has never been a case of Herpes B virus transmission
    from a pet macaque. My strong objection to describing primates as a
    public health risk is that it does a great disservice to these
    wonderful animals and can discourage their study and conservation. My
    efforts to correct this misconception include organizing a roundtable
    discussion on Primates and Public Health at the 23rd meeting of the
    American Society of Primatologists (ASP) in Boulder, Colorado in June
    2000 and I was subsequently successful in lobbying the ASP to retract
    their description of primates as a public health threat in their
    position statement on the private ownership of primates.
        The issue of animal welfare is frequently raised as justification
    that private individuals should not own nonhuman primates. I have
    visited the homes of many primate pet owners, attended their social
    events and spoken at conventions where the owners bring their pets, and
    I have been impressed by how responsible and informed the primate pet
    owners are. The housing that primate pet owners provide can equal and
    sometimes surpass that at zoos and is far superior to conditions in any
    research laboratory that I have visited. In my experience, primate pet
    owners are compassionate, dedicated individuals that make a serious
    social commitment to the lifelong care of their primate pets. These pet
    primates depend on their owners for social contact and typically travel
    with their owners frequently crossing state lines. Primate pet owners
    are well informed about the regulations in the different states they
    may travel to and through and are conscientious about obtaining the
    health certificate required for entry into each state. Restricting the
    movement of nonhuman pet primates with their owners is inhumane as it
    causes anxiety in such bonded pets as a result of social separation.
    Furthermore, primate pet owners of my acquaintance provide the best
    veterinary care possible and frequently cross state lines to obtain the
    quality and specialized care that they seek for their pets. It is
    ironic that the most likely outcome of the passage of this bill would
    only compromise the health and emotional well being of pet primates and
    the ability of their owners to provide the best care for their pets.
    Nonhuman primates are not only pets in the private sector, but, many
    are service animals aiding physically challenged individuals. There is
    no reason why private owners should not be allowed to cross state lines
    in accordance with existing state laws be it for health care, travel,
    relocating, or placing an animal in the best qualified place in the
    event of the owner's death or life change.
        It is my opinion that this bill is based on false premises with the
    intent of interfering with the constitutional right of law-abiding
    citizens to own a primate. It will do nothing to protect public health
    and safety or improve animal welfare. It seems regrettable that
    nonscientific interests have taken the time and resources of this
    important subcommittee in an effort to control an undocumented problem
    and an insignificant issue.
        In conclusion, I would like to ask this committee, on behalf of
    UAPPEAL, to please consider the negative consequences of this
    unnecessary legislation. This legislation will be a burden to
    responsible nonhuman primate owners who want to provide the necessary
    care for their pet's needs by meeting their social, welfare and health
    care needs which are not always available within their state of
    residence. These owners have the right to provide their pets with a
    lifetime of quality care without regulations that tie their hands in
    the process.
                                     ______

       Response to questions submitted for the record by Dr. Sian Evans,
              DuMond Conservancy for Primates and Tropical Forests

    Questions from Chairwoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU)
        I am in receipt of the following additional questions you have
    requested that I answer. I am particularly pleased that several of them
    deal with issues of animal care. I have 32 years of direct experience
    of caring for non-human primates in research environments, zoos and my
    own home (curriculum vitae previously submitted). I have cared for a
    wide variety of primate species from gorillas to the smallest monkey,
    pygmy marmosets. Thus, I am exceptionally well qualified to help the
    sub-committee understand the needs of non-human primates and the
    ability of primate pet owners to meet these needs.
    1.  Dr. Evans, thank you for your testimony. In your statement, you
            noted that your organization makes sure that nonhuman primate
            owners are willing and able to make a lifelong commitment to
            the nonhuman primates in their care.
      Can you describe how you can assure this commitment?
        UAPPEAL (Uniting a ProActive Primate and Exotic Animal League)
    members and their pets from strong emotional bonds and the owners
    suffer grief when these bonds are severed either through the death of
    the pet primate or the confiscation of their pet by court order. The
    pets of UAPPEAL members are treated with love and loyalty and together
    they form a cohesive social unit.
      What happens when an owner can no longer care for his or her
            nonhuman primate pet?
        UAPPEAL members have made arrangements for the care of their pet(s)
    in the case of an illness or death (see statements/documents in
    Appendix). Also included is a document that primate pet owners have
    prepared to be included in their wills.
    2.  You also state that you are not an advocate of primate pet
            ownership. Can you elaborate more on this point?
        Owning a primate pet requires an enormous time commitment and not
    all prospective primate pet owners can make this commitment. In my
    professional experience, empathy, deep interest, and the ability to
    nurture effectively are more important than other credentials in
    effectively responding to the complex needs of nonhuman primates in
    captivity.
    3.  Is the point that you raise about pet primates being susceptible to
            human diseases another reason to limit unnecessary additional
            contact between people and nonhuman primates?
        The purpose of H.R. 2964 is to limit the interstate transport of
    non-human primates by making a case that they are dangerous wild
    animals. Whether they are susceptible to human disease (anthroponosis)
    or not, is irrelevant to H.R.2964 and only mentioned in my testimony to
    emphasize the complete lack of documentation for zoonotic (animal to
    human) transmission from pet monkeys to humans.
    4.  Can you further explain the reason why infant macaques need to be
            removed from their mothers shortly after birth?
        Both United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) registered
    research facilities and USDA licensed zoos remove infant primates from
    their mothers at birth (Barr et al., 2008; Goodall, 2005; Kinnally et
    al., 2008). If this practice is permitted by the federal agency charged
    with regulating animal welfare, and presents no danger to humans, I
    fail to see any reason for the subcommittee to address this question.
    5.  Of the potential 15,000 pet primates in the United States, do you
            have an estimate of what percentage are cared for well and in a
            healthy environment?
        First, this 15,000 figure is highly problematic. The only reference
    to this figure that I could find was a quote by a Mr. Adam Roberts of
    Born Free USA in a press release in 2002 (Captive Wild Animal
    Protection Coalition, 2002). A telephone call (Evans, S 2008a) and e-
    mail enquiry (Evans, S, 2008b) to Mr. Roberts provided no documentation
    for his confident assertion that 15,000 primates was a minimum figure.
    I made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Mr. Wayne Pacelle of
    The Humans Society of the United States (HSUS) by telephone for
    clarification of his use of the 15,000 figure in testimony to this sub-
    committee (Captive Primate Safety Act, 2008) and was finally referred
    to Ms. Beth Price of HSUS. Ms. Price was very helpful and was able to
    clarify that the 15,000 figure does not refer to pet primates
    exclusively but all privately owned primates (Price, 2008) the vast
    majority of which are owned by UDSA licensees (public exhibitors and
    breeders) and thus exempt from this bill. Questions about the care and
    environment of these primates in USDA licensed facilities are best
    directed to USDA who maintain inspection reports of these facilities on
    file. Pet primates (not regulated by USDA) are regulated in several
    states with Florida having the most comprehensive regulations (Rule
    68A-6.00022, Florida Regulations). Florida issues personal pet primate
    permits and inspects the pet primate(s) regularly (Chapter 372.921,
    Florida Statutes). Lt. Pat Reynolds of the Florida Fish and Wildlife
    Conservation Commission (FWC) is an enforcement officer who is
    confident, that in his experience of inspecting primates in zoos,
    research institutions and human homes, that the ``healthiest and
    happiest'' primates are those living in human homes (Reynolds, P.
    2008). He attributes this to the close bond formed between the pet
    primate and their human caretakers and the varied and superior diets
    that pet owners provide. Lt. Reynolds has 30 years of experience with
    FWC and, in all likelihood, is more experienced in inspecting pet
    primates than any other wildlife enforcement officer in the Unites
    States.
    6.  Are there other possible ways for private owners to get veterinary
            care if there are no veterinarians in their state of residence?
            Could veterinarians make house calls?
        Veterinarians are typically licensed in individual states. It would
    be illegal for a veterinarian to cross state lines and practice
    veterinary medicine in a state in which they were unlicensed.
    7.  You mention the unnecessary burden that H.R. 2964 places on
            nonhuman primate owners. Can you think of other ways in which
            the balance between the burden to responsible owners and the
            societal burden of irresponsible owners can be better achieved?
        H.R. 2964 will not prevent irresponsible ownership of pet primates,
    it will only prevent any primate pet owner from crossing state lines
    with their pet(s) to seek veterinary care, flee from hurricanes or
    visit friends and family. There is no documentation of any significant
    societal burden from irresponsible primate per owners, thus H.R. 2964
    creates rather than resolves any imbalance. I am recommending that the
    sub committee withdraw this bill (supported only by entities opposed to
    exotic pet ownership) but, I do encourage state regulation of pet
    primates (using Florida as a model) to address any kind of societal
    issues that might concern you. More importantly these recommendations
    would directly benefit the welfare of pet primates.
        I was very encouraged to learn that The Chair of the House Natural
    Resource Committee, Rep. Nick J. Rahall (D-WV), is ``Very heartened
    that the Department of the Interior is stepping up to the plate to
    begin addressing the ``politics trumps science ploy'' endemic in this
    administration'' (Committee on Natural Resources, 2007). It would be a
    great shame if one of his own subcommittees were to disappoint him by
    doing likewise.
    References and Citations
    Barr CS, Schwandt ML, Lindell SG, Higley, JD, Maestripieri D, Goldman
            D, Suomi SJ, Heilig M. (2008) Variation at the mu-opioid
            receptor gene (OPRM1) influences attachment behavior in infant
            primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Apr 1;105(13):5277-81. Epub
            2008 Mar 31.
    Captive Primate Safety Act. Hearings of the House of Representatives,
            Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans. 100th Congress,
            2nd Session (Testimony of Wayne Pacelle).
    Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition. ``Congress urged to move
            swiftly on bill to protect primates.'' Available at:
            www.cwapc.org/pr/pr_20050316_PrimateBill.html. Accessed April
            8, 2008.
    Committee on Natural Resources (2007). ``Rahall: Interior Fesses Up on
            Politics Trumping Science'' 20/07
    Evans S. (2008a) Telephone conversation with Roberts, A. 18/04
    Evans S. (2008b) E-mail to Roberts, A. 19/04.
    Goodall J. (2005 Letter to Sponsors of Parrot Jungle Island) 20/05
    Kinnally EL., Lyons L.A., Abel K., Mendoza S., Capitanio J.P.
            (2008)Effects of early experience and genotype on serotonin
            transporter regulation in infant rhesus macaques Genes Brain
            Behav. Jan 16 [Epub ahead of print]
    Price B. (2008) Telephone conversation with Evans, S. 16 /04
    Reynolds P. (2008) Telephone conversation with Evans, S, 17 /04
    APPENDIX
         Uniting a Proactive Primate and Exotic Animal League (UAPPEAL)
            guidelines for the voluntary placement of exotic animals
        The following are UAPPEAL requirements for our involvement in the
    placement of exotic animals.
    NONHUMAN PRIMATE
         30 day quarantine
          All animals must have a health certificate from an
    experienced nonhuman primate veterinarian showing a negative TB test, a
    negative Herpes B and Hepatitis A viral panel and any other
    recommendations from the experienced nonhuman primate veterinarian.
          The new caregiver must have experience with nonhuman
    primates and appropriate enclosures and enrichment protocols.
          The new caregiver must have all applicable local, state
    and/or federal licensing and reside in a legal area.
          There is to be no breeding or selling of the nonhuman
    primate and if the new placement home does not work out for any reason,
    the animal is to be returned to UAPPEAL for replacement into another
    home.
          The disposition of the nonhuman primate will be
    considered in the placement so that the most compatible match can be
    made.
          The costs associated with the placement will be the
    responsibility of the owner and/or the new caregiver and is not the
    responsibility of UAPPEAL
    EXOTIC FELINES
          30 day quarantine
          All animals must have a health certificate from an
    experienced exotic feline veterinarian showing a negative parasite
    screening and a negative FIV/FeLV viral panel and any other
    recommendations from the experienced exotic feline veterinarian.
          The new caregiver must have experience with exotic
    felines and appropriate enclosures and enrichment protocols.
          The new caregiver must have all applicable local, state
    and/or federal licensing and reside in a legal area.
          In the case of large cats all interstate placement will
    be to USDA licensed facilities or 501c3 sanctuaries according to the
    laws set by the Captive Wildlife Safety Act.
          There is to be no breeding or selling of the exotic
    feline and if the new placement home does not work out for any reason,
    the animal is to be returned to UAPPEAL for replacement into another
    home.
          The disposition of the exotic feline will be considered
    in the placement so that the most compatible match can be made.
          The costs associated with the placement will be the
    responsibility of the owner and/or the new caregiver and is not the
    responsibility of UAPPEAL
        [NOTE: Examples of documents used by UAPPEAL members have been
    retained in the Committee's official files.]
                                     ______

        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Dr. Evans, for your very
    helpful comments.
        Mr. Wissinger, I am looking forward now to hearing from you
    next. Please begin.

      STATEMENT OF SKIP WISSINGER, RETIRED CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR,
                         NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

        Mr. Wissinger. Madame Chairwoman and members of the
    committee, my name is Skip Wissinger. I recently retired from
    the National Park Service after 33 years as a National Park
    Ranger and a Criminal Investigator/Special Agent in Shenandoah
    National Park.
        Throughout my career, much of my law enforcement efforts
    were specifically focused on the protection of the natural
    resources within our National Parks, including the
    investigating of widespread poaching of wildlife and the
    commercialization of threatened species, such as the American
    Black Bear and certain plant species. I have investigated or
    supervised the investigation of hundreds of cases involving the
    illegal taking or selling of wildlife, particularly from our
    NPS jurisdictions.
        During the last 10 years of my career, I planned and
    supervised the Federal side of several long-term interagency
    covert operations that specifically targeted the poaching of
    black bears, and the commercialization of black bear parts in
    widespread domestic and international black markets.
        These covert investigations extended for up to three years
    in length, involved operating a storefront as a platform to
    gather evidence, and at time utilized as many as five officers
    functioning covertly at the same time. All of the
    investigations, particularly the last, known as Operation VIPER
    [Virginia Interagency Effort to Protect Environmental
    Resources], provided a very clear picture of the nature and
    structure of the illegal black market trade in American Black
    Bear and bear parts within the United States.
        Operation VIPER utilized a storefront operation adjacent to
    SNP in a small community of Elkton, Virginia. While the store
    sold sporting goods on the surface, it quickly became well
    known as a source to illegally purchase black bear gall
    bladders and American ginseng roots.
        Over a three-year period this investigation netted over 100
    individuals, with approximately 700-plus violations of wildlife
    buying and/or selling crimes. Once this storefront was accepted
    as a trusted source of illegal products, we found ourselves in
    the bear gall trade to be almost insatiable. There were many,
    many customers who would have purchased two or three times the
    quantity of bear parts that we offered, who wanted to come back
    for additional purchases more frequently than we permitted, and
    who often wanted discounted prices so they could make more
    profit themselves when reselling to others. So demanding was
    this market that we frequently found ourselves limiting the
    volume of each sale in order to have enough products to sell to
    other interested buyers.
        After 33 years of protecting wildlife, investigating
    wildlife crimes, and experiencing first-hand the size and
    breadth of the black market in black bear trade, I can share
    the following observations, which would be echoed by many of my
    comrades from other agencies in the wildlife protection
    business.
        The cultural, ecological, and economic value of a healthy
    black bear population demonstrates a true national treasure
    that bears represent to all of us. The experience of a hunter
    legally bagging a black bear, or the sheer excitement of a
    family visiting one of our national parks and visiting bears in
    their natural habitat, are just two examples.
        The black market trade in bears has substantially grown in
    the United States in the past two decades. What was once
    believed to be mainly an international market is now primarily
    a domestic market here in the United States. This clearly
    expanded illegal black bear market clearly creates challenges
    for those of us entrusted with protecting wild bear populations
    throughout the country.
        With this in mind, relatively simple but comprehensive
    legislation targeted specifically toward the illegal trade of
    bear parts would provide effective and consistent enforcement
    by agencies throughout the United States.
        The illegality of trafficking in protected species is well
    known by both domestic and international buyers. Traffickers
    have little fear of getting caught. There is a common belief
    that the American judicial system will not be very hard on you,
    particularly for first-time offenders, and any fines imposed
    are simply the cost of doing business.
        The largest fear these buyers typically have is actually a
    concern about the authenticity of the product, not of getting
    caught. Again, buyers perceive that most defendants prosecuted
    will not be incarcerated but for short periods of time, or will
    only be required to pay a fine.
        The black market buyers are not concerned about the impact
    they have on our domestic wildlife population. They are very
    aware of the scarcity of the same product in their native
    country. They see our bears in the U.S. as vastly less
    expensive, more readily available than their own seriously
    depleted population.
        About one-third of our buyers were not just consumers
    themselves, but were acting as middlemen to sell, resell bear
    products.
        Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Wissinger, could you wrap up your
    statement, please?
        Mr. Wissinger. Yes. I would appreciate entering the rest of
    my written testimony into evidence. And I thank you for the
    opportunity to appear today.
        Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Wissinger, we include the full statement
    into the record.
        Mr. Wissinger. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wissinger follows:]

          Statement of Skip Wissinger, Retired Criminal Investigator,
                             National Park Service

        My name is Skip Wissinger. I recently retired from the National
    Park Service after 33 years as a National Park Ranger and a Criminal
    Investigator/Special Agent in Shenandoah National Park. Throughout my
    career much of my law enforcement efforts were specifically focused on
    the protection of the natural resources within our National Parks
    including the investigating of widespread poaching of wildlife and the
    commercialization of threatened species, such as the American Black
    bear and certain plant species. I have investigated or supervised the
    investigation of hundreds of cases involving the illegal taking or
    selling of wildlife, particularly from our NPS jurisdictions.
        During the last 10 years of my career, I planned and supervised the
    federal side of several long-term interagency covert operations that
    specifically targeted the poaching of black bears and the
    commercialization of black bear parts in widespread domestic and
    international black markets.
        These covert investigations extended for up to 3 years in length,
    involved operating a storefront as a platform to gather evidence, and,
    at times, utilized as many as 5 officers functioning covertly at the
    same time. All of the investigations, particularly the last, known as
    Operation VIPER (Virginia Interagency Effort to Protect Environmental
    Resources) provided a very clear picture of the nature and structure of
    the illegal black market trade in American Black bear and bear parts
    within the United States.
        Operation VIPER utilized a storefront operation adjacent to SNP in
    a small community of Elkton, Va. While the store sold sporting goods on
    the surface, it quickly became well-known as a source to illegally
    purchase black bear, bear gall bladders and American ginseng roots.
    Over a three year period this investigation netted over 100 individuals
    with approximately 700+ violations of wildlife buying and/or selling
    type of crimes. Once this store front was accepted as a trusted source
    for these illegal products, we found business in the bear gall trade to
    be almost insatiable. There were many, many customers who would have
    purchased two or three times the quantity of bear parts that we
    offered, who wanted to come back for additional purchases more
    frequently than we permitted, and who often wanted discounted prices so
    they could make more profit themselves when reselling to others. So
    demanding was this market, that we frequently found ourselves limiting
    the volume of each sale in order to have enough products to sell to
    other interested buyers.
        After 33 years of protecting wildlife, investigating wildlife
    crimes and experiencing first hand the size and breadth of the black
    market trade in black bears in the US, I can share the following
    observations which would also be echoed by many of my comrades from
    other agencies in the wildlife protection business.
          The cultural, ecological and economic value of a healthy
    black bear population demonstrates the true national treasure that
    bears represent to all of us. The experience of a hunter legally
    bagging a black bear or the sheer excitement of a family visiting one
    of our National Parks and witnessing bears in their natural habitat are
    just two examples of the importance of careful stewardship of this
    wildlife treasure for today as well as future generations.
          The black market trade in bears has substantially grown
    in the U.S. in the past two decades. What was once believed to be
    mainly an international market is now primarily a domestic market here
    in the U.S. This newly expanded illegal bear market clearly creates
    challenges for those entrusted with protecting the wild bear population
    throughout the country. With this in mind, relatively simple but
    comprehensive legislation (targeted specifically toward the illegal
    trade of bear parts) would provide effective and consistent enforcement
    by agencies throughout the U.S.
          The illegality of the trafficking in protected species is
    well-known by both domestic and international buyers. Traffickers have
    little fear of getting caught. There is a common belief that the
    American judicial system will not be very hard on you, particularly for
    first time offenders, and that any fines imposed are simply a cost of
    doing business. The largest fear these buyers have is actually a
    concern about the authenticity of the product, not of getting caught.
    Again buyers perceive that most defendants prosecuted in state and
    federal courts will not be incarcerated for even short periods and will
    only be required to pay a fine.
          The black market buyers are not concerned about the
    impact they have on our domestic wildlife populations, however, they
    are very aware of the scarcity of the same products in their native
    country. They see our bears in the U.S. as vastly less expensive and
    more readily available than their own seriously depleted populations.
    About 1/3 of our buyers were not just consumers themselves--but were
    also acting as middlemen to resell bear products for profit purposes.
          The majority of time spent by our dedicated conservation
    officers throughout the country is devoted toward policing hunter
    behavior and protecting land-owner rights and property. Unfortunately
    little time, manpower or money is invested in investigating wildlife
    trafficking crimes.
          I feel very privileged for the NPS to have been able to
    partner with other agencies such as the Va. Dept. of Game and Inland
    Fisheries in numerous interagency investigations. From an operational
    standpoint, it is critical that LE agencies be free to conduct
    investigations, either together or at times independently, without
    jurisdictional, authority or regulatory limitations and be nimble,
    timely and flexible enough to react to situations as they arise. Any
    legislation that limits conservation officers' ability to quickly
    pursue an investigation will hinder the success of that operation.
          I would also point out that federal prosecution of
    eligible trafficking cases can be severely limited due to the small
    number of laboratories available, capable and willing to perform
    ``species specific'' forensic analysis. This scarcity of forensic
    support weakens prosecutorial evidence and often allows felonious
    conduct to result in lesser misdemeanor convictions and reduced
    sentences.
          I understand that in previous versions of the bill,
    HR3029, there was a prohibition not only in the trafficking in bear
    viscera, but also in the trafficking of products labeled, advertised,
    or said to contain bear viscera. The intent of illegal traffickers
    should be prosecutable as well as the actual act. If an illegal sale is
    represented as a black bear gall bladder by the seller, then the seller
    should be prosecuted of selling the same, and the buyer of purchasing
    the same, whether or not the gall bladder in question is forensically
    proven to be black bear. This small legislative point is essential and
    could also eliminate the requirement for exhaustive field sampling and
    subsequent forensic testing, as similar statutory measures have
    assisted prosecutions within the illegal drug trade.
                                     ______

        Ms. Bordallo. I want to thank you for your statement and
    your perspective. And I would now like to invite Mr. Schoenke
    to testify on behalf of the American Hunters and Shooters
    Association.
        Please begin.

                 STATEMENT OF RAY SCHOENKE, PRESIDENT,
               AMERICAN HUNTERS AND SHOOTERS ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Schoenke. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. My name is Ray
    Schoenke. I am President of the American Hunters and Shooters
    Association, and I appreciate the opportunity to share with you
    our support for H.R. 5534, the Bear Protection Act of 2008.
        My experience as an outdoorsman includes being a lifelong
    gun owner, hunter, and conservationist. And I was a former
    professional football player and businessman. I own and operate
    a 300-acre farm on Maryland's eastern shore, and have hunted
    throughout the United States.
        Madame Chairwoman, we have a history in common in
    Polynesia. One of my favorite places to hunt is in Hawaii.
        My organization is a new pro-hunting gun rights
    organization which believes in sound management of our wild
    natural resources. Responsible and ethical actions are the duty
    of all hunters and shooters who enjoy the shooting sports. By
    setting a proper example, AHSA believes we can protect the
    natural environment for future generations to enjoy.
        Sound conservation policies assure quality hunting
    opportunities and the managed use of our wildlife and other
    natural resources.
        Madame Chairwoman, as you are likely aware, most black bear
    populations in the United States appear to be very healthy, and
    generally increasing. Also as you are likely aware, the
    responsibility for the conservation and management of bear
    species in the United States lies largely with State Fish and
    Wildlife agencies.
        Our fear is that the growing illegal trade in bear parts
    has put our country on a fast track toward the eventual decline
    of otherwise healthy bear populations here in the United
    States.
        Wildlife management experts agree that the market demand
    for bear gall bladders and bile is on the rise, and is
    negatively impacting bear populations worldwide. Evidence
    points to a pattern of killing bears in the United States and
    Canada in order to satisfy the demand for bear parts in
    consuming nations, primarily Asian markets.
        The current approach of trying to regulate the illegal
    bear-parts trade on a state-by-state basis in the United
    States, and on a country-by-country basis globally, has failed.
        AHSA believes it is time to recognize the usefulness, if
    not the necessity, for national legislation uniformly
    prohibiting commercialization of bear viscera. We know the
    Asian bear population has declined rapidly. But because Asia's
    economic development is expanding, the demand for bear viscera
    will increase. Add into the problem the fact that the
    international trade in American black bear parts is largely
    unregulated.
        Conservationists maintain that because it is impossible to
    tell an American black bear gall bladder from that of a
    protected species, traders can claim the organs come from
    legally hunted animals.
        The wide-open policy of some states that allow the sale and
    export of bear viscera may be driving the bear-poaching
    problem. Recently there have been several highly successful
    sting operations to uncover bear poaching and illicit trade in
    bear parts, as was already explained to you.
        Evidence that the bear trade parts from East Coast, West
    Coast, and Mid-Atlantic Region of the U.S. continues today
    unfettered. H.R. 5534, the Bear Protection Act of 2008, would
    assist state and Federal wildlife law enforcement efforts
    regarding bear management, while creating a sound national
    policy against the trade in bear gall bladders and bile.
        H.R. 5534 is narrowly crafted to address U.S. involvement
    in the bear gall bladder trade, without Federalizing hunting.
    Usurping lawful sportsmen's ability to hunt bears in accordance
    with state laws and regulations, or undermining the ability of
    state game agencies to otherwise manage their resident bear
    populations.
        AHSA believes a uniform national ``bright line''
    prohibition on the trade of bear gall bladders and viscera will
    greatly clarify the rules for all American hunters. Similar
    legislation, which was approved by the U.S. Senate twice
    before, had overwhelming bipartisan support, and was supported
    by dozens of representatives of state wildlife agencies.
        Historically, human decisions to protect wildlife from
    exploitation usually come long after it is time for taking
    necessary action. Some wildlife populations have been
    drastically diminished, sometimes past the point of recovery,
    before appropriate steps have been taken to prevent further
    declines.
        By learning from these conservation mistakes and applying
    responsible wildlife management principles, we can prevent
    ecological mistakes and protect our precious natural resources
    before it is too late.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share our views.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schoenke follows:]

                     Statement of Ray Schoenke, President,
                American Hunters and Shooters Association, Inc.

        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am Ray Schoenke, President of the
    American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) and I appreciate the
    opportunity to share with you AHSA's support for H.R. 5534, The Bear
    Protection Act of 2008.
        My experience as an outdoorsman includes being a lifelong gun
    owner, hunter, conservationist and former Washington Redskin football
    player. I own and operate a 300-acre hunting preserve on Maryland's
    Chesapeake Bay, and have hunted throughout the United States and
    Europe; from the plains of South Dakota, to the panhandle of Texas, to
    the slopes of Mauna Kea, Hawaii, to the countryside of England.
        My organization, AHSA, is a new pro-hunting, gun rights
    organization, which has only been in existence for about two years.
    Despite that fact, AHSA is steadily gaining national recognition for
    not being afraid to speak out in favor of policy positions that may not
    always be popular with traditional gun organizations. AHSA has national
    membership base of hunters and shooters who not only believe in the
    individual right to keep and bear arms, but also believe that along
    with our 2nd amendment right comes a civic responsibility to make sure
    our communities are safe and our environment is protected and
    maintained for future generations.
        AHSA believes in the biologically sound management of our wild
    natural resources. Responsible and ethical actions are the duty of all
    hunters and shooters who enjoy the shooting sports. Our hunting
    heritage depends upon hunters understanding their contribution to the
    maintenance of a healthy, productive environment. By setting the proper
    example, AHSA believes we can protect the natural environment for
    future generations to enjoy. Sound conservation policies assure quality
    hunting opportunities and the managed use of our wildlife and other
    natural resources.
        We firmly believe hunting is a natural, beneficial and enjoyable
    use of our renewable wildlife resources and it is an American tradition
    to be passed on to future generations.
        Madam Chairwoman, as you are likely aware, most black bear
    populations in the United States appear to be healthy 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 state fish and wildlife agencies. Our fear
    however, is that the growing illegal trade in bear parts has put our
    country on a fast track toward the eventual decline of otherwise
    healthy bear populations here in the United States.
        Wildlife management experts agree that the market demand for bear
    gallbladders and bile is on the rise and is negatively impacting bear
    populations worldwide. Evidence points to a systematic pattern of
    killing bears in the United States and Canada in order to satisfy the
    demand for bear parts in consuming nations, primarily Asian markets.
    The bear parts trade is international in scope and difficult to
    regulate and contain. The current approach of trying to regulate the
    legal bear parts trade on a state-by-state basis in the United States
    and on a country-by-country basis globally has failed and, according to
    some experts, has actually facilitated illegal markets. AHSA believes
    it is time to recognize the usefulness, if not the necessity, for
    national legislation uniformly prohibiting commercialization of bear
    viscera.
        In the late 1980s, U.S. and Canadian park rangers began finding
    carcasses of American black bears, missing only their gallbladders and
    paws or claws. It was not long before law enforcement officials began
    to realize the nature and scope of the problem: American black bears
    were slaughtered to meet demand in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and
    China. In these countries, the bile from bear gallbladders is
    considered to have great medicinal qualities.
        We know the Asian bear population has declined rapidly. All five of
    Asia's bear species are so rare that captive animals are being farmed
    for their gallbladders and bile. Overall, all but two of the world's
    eight bear species are in danger of extinction. As Asia's economic
    development expands, the demand for bear viscera will very likely
    increase.
        Adding to the problem is the fact that international trade in
    American black bear parts is largely unregulated. States such as New
    York, Virginia, West Virginia, Idaho, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Vermont,
    and Maine allow the sale and export of the bear parts. Conservationists
    maintain that because it is impossible to tell an American black bear's
    gallbladder from that of a protected species, traders can claim the
    organs come from legally hunted animals. The wide open policy of some
    states that allow the sale and export of bear viscera may be driving
    the bear poaching problem.
        Worth noting here, is a recent highly successful sting operation to
    uncover bear poaching and the illicit trade in bear parts in the
    Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. Operation VIPER (Virginia
    Interagency Effort to Protect Environmental Resources), which was
    announced in January 2004, documented nearly 500 state violations and
    more than 200 federal violations by 100 or more people in seven states
    and the District of Columbia for their roles in this illegal trade.
    Shenandoah National Park Superintendent Douglas K. Morris unequivocally
    stated that ``Commercialization of protected natural resources is a
    nationwide, worldwide problem, and some of it starts right here in
    Shenandoah National Park as well as other National Park Sites.''
        Operation VIPER uncovered evidence that the trade in bear parts
    from the East Coast, West Coast, and Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S.
    continues unfettered, involving whole bears, bear gallbladders, paws,
    and other parts being trafficked to Washington, DC, Maryland, West
    Virginia, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, and California.
    Nationals of the Republic of Korea have been implicated in the trade as
    the destination of the bear parts in this case and in other cases as
    well.
        Wildlife management experts have long warned that the variations in
    state laws that regulate the trade in bear parts create an unhealthy
    incentive for poachers. Cases such as VIPER are not unusual. Even
    Alaska, a state with the largest bear population, is susceptible to
    poaching and illegal trade. As a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special
    Agent in Alaska told the Anchorage Daily News the danger poaching poses
    is that it ``can make a significant impact [to the bear population] in
    a small area.'' Despite the fact that Alaska has a ban on the
    commercialization of bear parts, poaching occurs because gallbladders
    can easily be smuggled out of the state and sold in other non-
    restrictive states.
        The H.R. 5534, the Bear Protection Act of 2008 would assist state
    and federal wildlife law-enforcement efforts regarding bear management
    while creating a sound national policy against the trade in bear
    gallbladders and bile.
        H.R. 5534 is narrowly crafted to address U.S. involvement in the
    bear gallbladder trade without federalizing hunting, usurping lawful
    sportsmen's ability to hunt bears in accordance with state laws and
    regulations, or undermining the ability of state game agencies to
    otherwise manage their resident bear populations. AHSA believes a
    uniform national ``bright line'' prohibition on the trade of bear
    gallbladders and viscera will greatly clarify the rules for all
    American hunters.
        Similar legislation, which was approved by the United States Senate
    twice before, had overwhelming bi-partisan support and was supported by
    dozens of representatives of state wildlife agencies.
        In fact, opponents of federal legislation that had been introduced
    in previous sessions of Congress to prohibit the commercialization of
    bear parts argued simply that the relative health of the U.S. bear
    population makes such legislation unnecessary.
        Historically, human decisions to protect wildlife from exploitation
    usually come long after its time for taking necessary action. Some
    wildlife populations have been drastically diminished, sometimes past
    the point of recovery, before appropriate steps have been taken to
    prevent further declines. By learning from these conservation mistakes,
    and applying responsible wildlife management principles, we can prevent
    ecological mistakes and protect our precious natural resources before
    it is too late.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share AHSA's view on this
    important piece of legislation, and I would be happy to answer any
    questions.
                                     ______

        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Schoenke, and I
    appreciate your view.
        Mr. Hogan, it is now your turn to testify, so please
    proceed.

             STATEMENT OF MATT HOGAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
               ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

        Mr. Hogan. Thank you, Madame Chair and members of the
    Subcommittee. I am Matt Hogan, the Executive Director of the
    Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
        I appreciate the opportunity to share with you the
    Association's perspectives on H.R. 5534, the Bear Protection
    Act. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies was founded
    in 1902 as 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 all 50
    states, provinces, territories, and Federal governments of the
    U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
        The Association does not support H.R. 5534 as it is
    currently written. We conclude that this bill would do little,
    if anything, to address the intended purpose of the bill, the
    poaching of bears for their viscera. In fact, it may hinder
    efforts to address the illegal harvest and trade of their
    viscera, as well as other wildlife and their parts.
        Therefore, we believe that it represents an unnecessary
    intrusion into state wildlife management authorities without a
    demonstrated need.
        Under existing law, any interstate movement of viscera,
    from or into a state, from a bear that has been illegally taken
    or poached is already subject to prosecution under the Lacey
    Act. Currently bear populations in the United States are
    healthy, robust, and expanding in most places. When and where
    domestic poaching occurs, state and Federal enforcement is
    adequately addressing it.
        With respect to populations of Asian bears, which are most
    subject to poaching for their viscera, this bill would have
    arguably minimal effect. In fact, H.R. 5534 could quite
    possibly have a negative impact on efforts to address the
    serious threats to Asian bear populations by detracting from
    capacity in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of
    Law Enforcement from higher priorities, especially addressing
    illegal international trade, and commerce of wildlife parts of
    products.
        The Association is far from alone in this conclusion. The
    April 2002 comprehensive report from WWF TRAFFIC North America
    on the status, management, and trade of American Black Bear in
    North America definitively concludes, and I quote, ``Given the
    information gleaned from its surveys and the continuing growth
    of most North American Black Bear populations, TRAFFIC
    concluded that further laws banning all trade in bear gall
    bladders or other parts at the national level are currently
    unnecessary. Indeed, concerns exist that closing legal markets
    have the unintended consequence of raising prices in the
    underground market, and perhaps stimulating poaching in illegal
    trade.
        ``In addition, TRAFFIC is concerned that expending the
    necessary resources to enforce such a ban could detract from
    the conservation of other species that are far more endangered
    or threatened by trade or other reasons.''
        Information from the states substantiates that while
    incidental illegal harvest occurs, there is no significant
    population impact from illegal harvest in any bear range state.
    If there were, I can assure you that State Fish and Wildlife
    agencies would take appropriate actions to address it.
        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.
        Our state-based system of fish and wildlife conservation in
    the United States is justifiably the envy of the rest of the
    world. Accordingly, we would respectfully suggest that rather
    than the creation of additional Federal statutory authority, as
    contemplated in H.R. 5534, the provision of additional
    resources to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of
    Law Enforcement would be a more appropriate and effective means
    of protecting Asian bear populations by the regulation of
    illegal trade in their parts and products.
        The Association has long been an advocate for increasing
    funds for Fish and Wildlife Service special agents and wildlife
    inspectors to more effectively deal with illegal trade in
    foreign commerce.
        The Association is certainly willing to work with this
    subcommittee, the bill 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, or
    CITES. However, a bill that addresses only domestic activities
    is simply without need, and does little to address the real
    problem.
        Again, Madame Chair, thank you for providing us the
    opportunity to testify on this legislation. I would be happy to
    answer any questions that you or other members of the
    Subcommittee might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hogan follows:]

                 Statement of Matt Hogan, Executive Director,
                   Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

        Thank you, Madam Chair. I am Matt Hogan, Executive Director, of the
    Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Association). I appreciate
    the opportunity to share with you the Association's perspectives on
    HR5534, the Bear Protection Act. The Association of Fish and Wildlife
    Agencies was founded in 1902 as 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 U.S., 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.
        The Association opposes HR5534 as it is currently written. We
    conclude that this bill would do little if anything to address the
    intended purpose of the bill--the poaching of bears for their viscera.
    In fact, it may hinder efforts to address the illegal harvest and trade
    of bear viscera as well as other wildlife and their parts. Therefore,
    we believe strongly that it represents an unnecessary intrusion into
    state wildlife management authorities.
        Under existing law, any interstate movement of viscera from or into
    a state from a bear that has been illegally taken and/or where
    possession, use or sale is not legal is already subject to prosecution
    under the Lacey Act. Currently bear populations in the United States
    (and North American) are healthy, robust and expanding in most places.
    When and where domestic poaching occurs, state and federal law
    enforcement is adequately addressing it. With respect to populations of
    Asian bears which are most subject to poaching for their viscera, but
    also under intense pressure from habitat loss, this bill would have
    arguably minimal affect. HR5534 is therefore both unnecessary and could
    quite possibly have a negative impact on efforts to address the serious
    threats to Asian bear populations by detracting from capacity in the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Law Enforcement from
    higher priorities, especially addressing illegal international trade
    and commence of wildlife parts or products.
        The Association is far from alone in this conclusion. The April
    2002 compreshensive report from TRAFFIC North America on the status,
    management and trade of the American black bear in North America
    definitively concludes ``Given the information gleaned from its
    surveys, and the continuing growth of most North American black bear
    populations, TRAFFIC concluded that further laws banning all trade in
    bear gallbiaders or other parts at the national level are currently
    unnecessary. Indeed, concerns exist that closing legal markets have the
    unintended consequence of raising prices in the undergrounnd market and
    perhaps stimulating poaching and illegal trade. In addition, TRAFFIC is
    concerned that expending the necessary resources to enforce such a ban
    could detract from the conservation of other species that are far more
    endangered or threatened by trade or for other reasons.''
        Madam Chair, we understand that the intent of the bill sponsor is
    to help address the poaching of Asian bear species for their gall. We
    applaud efforts to address the poaching of Asian bear species for their
    gall. However, the bill as currently drafted focuses its application
    only 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. There is no substantiation to support either of
    these premises, and the Association therefore concludes that as
    introduced, HR5534 is neither necessary nor helpful in addressing the
    decline of foreign bear species. 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, a bill that addresses only
    domestic activities is simply without need and does little to address
    the real need.
        As noted above, bear populations throughout the United States are
    robust and generally increasing. Also,, the statutory responsibility
    for the conservation and management of bear species in the United
    States lies largely with the State fish and wildlife agencies, with the
    exception of 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 all
    State Fish and Wildlife agencies 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 in interstate or foreign commerce any wildlife that
    is illegally taken in the state of origin. Accordingly, any bear that
    was illegally taken (poached) for it's viscera or any other purpose is
    already a violation of state law and if that bear or any part of that
    bear (including the viscera) was transported out of the state from
    which it was taken, it would immediately trigger the Lacey Act. In
    addition, information from the States substantiates that while
    incidental illegal harvest occurs, there is no significant population
    impact from illegal harvest in any bear range state. If there were, I
    can assure you that our State fish and wildlife agencies would take
    appropriate action to address it. 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.
        This conclusion is also corroborated by the USFWS in a paper
    delivered in 1997 at the 2nd 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 HR5534 is unnecessary for bear
    resource protection, and is an inappropriate federal intrusion into
    state management authorities and prerogatives.
        Our state-based system of fish and wildlife conservation in the
    United States is justifiably the envy of the rest of the world.
    Accordingly, we would respectfully suggest that rather than the
    creation of additional federal statutory authority as contemplated in
    H.R. 5534, especially where it preempts state management prerogatives,
    the provision of additional resources to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service's 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. The Association has long
    been an advocate for increasing funds for FWS Special Agents and Port
    (of Entry) Inspectors to more effectively deal with illegal trade in
    foreign commerce.
        I would reiterate as indicated earlier, the Association 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. With respect to the savings clause in
    H.R. 5534, it does not adequately save the states' authorities.
    However, we do have language which we believe would do that, and will
    be happy to work with staff if you so desire.
        In conclusion, the Association believes HR5534 as introduced is
    both unnecessary and inappropriately expansive in its reach to domestic
    bear species, while doing little to protect and conserve bear
    populations at risk of poaching for their viscera. Accordingly, we
    therefore must oppose HR5534 as introduced.
        Again, thank you for providing us with the opportunity to testify
    on this legislation.
                                     ______

          Response to questions submitted for the record by Matt Hogan

    CHAIRWOMAN BORDALLO QUESTIONS
     QUESTION 1: Does the Bear Protection Act require individual states to
            allow or disallow bear hunting?
    ANSWER:
        No.
     QUESTION 2: Does the Bear Protection Act require states that allow
            bear hunting to conduct those hunts in a certain manner, with
            certain weapons, for a season of a certain length, or with
            certain bag limits?
    ANSWER:
        No
     QUESTION 3: Which state game agencies does your Association represent?
    ANSWER:
        All 50 State Fish and Wildlife Agencies are members of the
    Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
     QUESTION 4: I've seen many statements in the past discussions on the
            Bear Protection Act where state game agencies supported a
            federal prohibition because they felt it would deter poaching
            and help prosecute wildlife criminals. So who speaks for those
            agencies that support the bill?
    ANSWER:
        The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies represents the
    collective perspectives of the 50 state fish and wildlife agencies as
    arrived at through a deliberative process of subject matter committee,
    a legislative committee, and ultimately the assembled body of
    Directors. However, any state fish and wildlife agency is free to take
    its own individual position even if it is contrary to the Association
    position.
     QUESTION 5: Do you know of any demand for bear gall bladders within
            the U.S.?
    ANSWER:
        Some state fish and wildlife agencies report use of legally taken
    bear gall in their state.
     QUESTION 6: Can you explain what a robust bear population is? What is
            this in comparison to: 10 years ago; 50 years ago; 100 years
            ago?
    ANSWER:
        A robust bear population is one with stable or increasing numbers,
    stable or expanding range and good fecundity. Black bear populations in
    the U.S. are much healthier now than both10 or 50 years ago. Data from
    100 years ago are sparse, but while it is evident that the black bear
    range has diminished, extant populations are healthy where habitat
    remains.
     QUESTION 7: While the overall bear population in North America is
            healthy, aren't there some states with very small bear
            populations? Would you agree that if one of these poaching
            rings were set up in a state with a small population, poaching
            might not make a dent in the continent-wide population, it
            could have serious consequences in those states with small
            populations of wild bears? I would not expect the Association
            to support, for example, the loss of 20% or 30% or 40% of a
            small statewide bear population to poachers, would it?
    ANSWER:
        Yes, there are some states with small bear populations, but every
    state has diligent law enforcement capability to deter poaching that
    would be significantly deleterious to that state's bear population.
    And, to make it clear for the record, of course the Association would
    not support poaching loss to bear populations, but poaching occurs and
    is one of those population constraints that require management
    attention.
     QUESTION 8: Should individual states be allowed to decide for
            themselves whether traditional medicine practitioners can use
            tiger bone or rhino horn in their pharmacopoeia? (The answer
            will likely be that these are endangered species and their
            import is banned under CITES because they are Appendix, I, so
            the follow up would be:) (2) Do you agree that the federal
            government is within its right to prohibit the import and sale
            of endangered Appendix I specimens? (3) However, currently if
            someone succeeds in importing bear gallbladders from highly
            endangered Asiatic bear galls or bile into New York they can be
            fraudulently sold as American bear parts. And since it's legal
            in New York, there would be no need for state authorities to
            investigate or uncover this dangerous fraud? (4) Those parts
            could then be shipped to other states as well-so essentially
            the status quo facilitates interstate commerce in prohibited,
            endangered species parts and derivatives?
    ANSWER:
        All questions herein seem to dismiss acknowledgement that under
    circumstances where bear gall is illegally taken and/or moved to or
    from a state where it is not legal to posses it, the Lacey Act is
    triggered. We acknowledge that the U.S. is obligated under CITES to
    impose international commerce restrictions. Under the circumstances
    described in the question that someone ``succeeds in importing bear
    gallbladders from highly endangered Asiatic bear into the New York'',
    then a federal prohibition is already triggered and a violation has
    occurred.
     QUESTION 9: Mr. Hogan, in your testimony you state that passage of the
            Bear Protection Act would constitute ``an unnecessary federal
            intrusion into state management authorities and prerogatives.''
            How exactly, on the ground, would enactment of this legislative
            harm state wildlife management?
    ANSWER:
        Conservation of resident fish and wildlife is not a federal
    authority delegated to the states. The states under the U.S.
    Constitution retain the principal authority for management of resident
    fish and wildlife and share jurisdiction where Congress has given
    federal agencies certain conservation responsibilities for migratory
    birds, listed threatened and endangered species, etc. States are
    succeeding very well in managing for robust populations of black bears,
    including possession and use of certain parts or products under state
    law. There is no substantiated need to federalize black bear
    management.
     QUESTION 10: Members of this subcommittee, including myself, would be
            very supportive of your suggested alternative to passing the
            Bear Protection Act. We would love to see sufficient federal
            funding appropriated for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Special Agents
            and Port Inspectors. While we can advise the appropriators on
            priority needs, unfortunately, this subcommittee can only
            really affect change by authorizing or prohibiting actions. And
            yet we feel very strongly that bears in the United States
            should benefit from the strongest possible protections. I have
            to be frank and tell you I don't understand why you wouldn't
            support the Bear Protection Act and then seek additional
            protections such as additional safeguards in international
            trade through, for example, the Ways and Means Committee.
    ANSWER:
        The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has long advocated
    increased funding for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agents and
    Port Inspectors and will continue to do so. 4 State Fish and Wildlife
    Directors are also on the U.S. Department of State CITES delegation to
    the CoPs. So, we are significantly involved in both domestic and
    international bear conservation efforts. State fish and wildlife
    agencies are recognized under CITES protocol as the management
    authorities for resident fish and wildlife in the U.S. The real
    deficiency in international bear conservation efforts lies outside of
    North America, not domestically. There is simply no need to federalize
    black bear management, and yet there is a large unmet need in
    international bear conservation efforts.
     QUESTION 11: You state in your testimony that H.R. 5534 does not
            adequately save the States' authorities. I find that very
            concerning. So I look to the bill's section 5, and I read,
            ``None of the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to
            affect the regulation by any State of its bear populations or
            to affect the hunting of bears that is lawful under applicable
            State laws and regulations.'' I don't believe that's language
            that is subject to interpretation. Could you please explain?
    ANSWER:
        The Association proffers an improvement to the savings clause thus:
    ``None of the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to affect
    the regulation by any state of its bear populations or to affect the
    hunting of bears or the possession or use of the parts or products
    including viscera that is lawful under applicable state laws and
    regulations.''
    BROWN QUESTIONS
     QUESTION 1: Mr. Hogan, I understand that there are five states that
            allow the trade of legally acquired bear parts. Can you
            identify those and briefly comment on the provisions in those
            states?
    ANSWER:
        This bill would preempt state authority in the following states:
          NEW YORK: allows trade in bear parts. Bear populations
    are healthy and expanding in the state. New York has seen no need to
    restrict trade in bear parts.
          6NYCRR 1.31: (6) Parts of bear, other than flesh, may be
    possessed and sold provided the parts are from a black bear legally
    taken and reported in New York State.
          VERMONT: In the harvest of black bears there are 32 laws
    and regs on hunting of bears and subsequent sale of legally harvested
    bear parts. 250-750 black are taken each fall during a 77 day season.
    Harvest equates to 20,000--45,000 lbs of bear meat harvested annually
    from the forests of Vermont.
        While is it legal to sell bear parts only 9% of successful hunters
    sold any part of their bear; only 7% sold the gall bladder (10 gall
    bladders sold instate, 4 sold out of state); average price of a gall
    bladder was $59.
        Section 4783(b) (2): A person may buy or sell at any time the head,
    hide, paws and internal organs of a black bear, legally taken.
          WYOMING: The sale of viscera from legally harvested bears
    is not prohibited. Wildlife law enforcement officers have not
    documented any trade or sale of bear viscera in Wyoming during the last
    five years.
          IDAHO: allows the sale of bear parts, including viscera.
        Possession and Sale of Wildlife Parts: Lawfully harvested
        Wildlife parts ``except edible meat from game animals--may be
    purchased, bartered and sold when accompanied by a written statement
    showing said wildlife was lawfully harvested. If black bear or mountain
    lion parts--excluding tanned/finished rugs or mounts--are sold or
    bartered, a signed written statement showing the taker's name, address,
    license and tag numbers, date and the location of kill must be provided
    to the buyer. Buyers must submit completed transaction statements to
    the state agency within ten (10) days of sale.
          MAINE: 3,000--4.000 bears taken annually; the sale of
    bear parts has never driven the kill of bears, demand for galls lower
    than 10 years ago. Teeth and claws are used for jewelry and skins for
    rugs, but not high volume. Real bear moneymaker is guiding bear
    hunters.
        Section 11217(2) (A): A person may sell the head, teeth, gall
    bladder, claws and hide of a bear.
     QUESTION 2: As a follow-up, what is your understanding of the
            implications of this bill on those state laws and regulations?
    ANSWER:
        Unless you fall within one of the exemptions of the Act, this bill
    would prohibit States from regulating movement of bear viscera across
    State lines. Prohibited activities would include:
          Interstate sale and purchase;
          Transport across State lines; and
          Receiving or acquiring bear viscera if the viscera is
    moved from the State to Another state.
        This bill would void all five states' laws and regulations and is
    an unnecessary intrusion into state wildlife management authorities.
    There is no need for this bill. Any interstate movement of bear viscera
    from or into a state where possession, use or sale is not legal is
    already subject to prosecution under the Lacey Act.
     QUESTION 3: Speaking from your experience as a Deputy Director of the
            U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, would you conclude that this
            bill would assist the Service in fulfilling any of its highest
            priority needs?
    ANSWER:
        When I was Deputy Director, the Service had an authorized force of
    253 special agents to enforce our wildlife laws and treaties that
    protect trust resources, including endangered species, marine mammals
    and migratory birds. Given the scope of the agency's conservation
    mission, the limited manpower available, and the Service's needs to
    focus on the highest priority needs, the Fish and Wildlife Service
    concentrates its enforcement efforts on preventing illegal activities
    that jeopardize the continued viability of wild populations of
    protected species. Management of bear populations and regulation of
    parts or products from bears are management decisions for individual
    states, rather than at the federal level. The bill, as currently
    drafted, does not save State authority.
     QUESTION 4: What are the deficiencies in the ``Saving Clause''
            language in H.R. 5534?
    ANSWER:
        The Association proffers an improvement to the savings clause thus:
    ``None of the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to affect
    the regulation by any state of its bear populations or to affect the
    hunting of bears or the possession or use of the parts or products
    including viscera that is lawful under applicable state laws and
    regulations.''
     QUESTION 5: How many U.S. states currently ban the trade in bear
            organs?
    ANSWER:
        35 according to the Traffic North America, World Wildlife Fund,
    April 2002 report, ``In the Black.''
     QUESTION 6: The disturbing trend seems to be that Congress continues
            to increase the workload on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
            without giving them adequate resources or manpower to get the
            job done. If everything pending before the Congress is enacted,
            than the list of prohibited species would include big cats,
            illegal timber and wood products, nonhuman primates and bear
            viscera, are you concerned that this is a systematic effort to
            federalize all wildlife management? What would be wrong with
            that approach?
    ANSWER:
        Yes, the Association is very concerned that there is an increasing
    trend to federalize wildlife management, especially since there is
    little or no substantiated validation of need for many of these
    proposals. The U.S. system of fish and wildlife conservation based on
    the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is the most
    successful government fish and wildlife conservation program in the
    world. Authorities that exist now at the federal and state levels are
    generally comprehensive and appropriate to ensure success. What is
    lacking is adequate funding. Imposing unnecessary additional
    obligations on the federal government without additional funding simply
    further dilutes and diminishes their ability to satisfy the obligations
    they currently have.
     QUESTION 7: Is it your view that this legislation is a solution in
            search of a problem? How big is the harvesting of American
            black bear parts for the illegal gall bladder trade in Asia?
    ANSWER:
        As I substantiated in my written statement, there is no evidence to
    suggest that American black bear gall are significantly contributing to
    the illegal gall trade in Asia.
     QUESTION 8: Mr. Hogan, are you familiar with the comprehensive TRAFFIC
            North America report ``In the Black''? This report had a number
            of specific conclusions and recommendations. Do you recall,
            whether the report recommend the enactment of a federal Bear
            Protection Act? Why not take this approach?
    ANSWER:
        The report recommended, as I indicated my statement, against the
    enactment of the BPA. First because it would detract from other
    international conservation law enforcement priorities of the USFWS, a
    point with which the Association concurs. And, TRAFFIC concludes that
    enacting the BPA could further encourage black-market trade.
                                     ______

        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Hogan, for your
    remarks.
        And the Chair would like to recognize another member of the
    committee, Rep. Capps from the State of California.
        Dr. Goodall has arrived, and I would like to welcome her
    before the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to introduce a woman
    who continues to deeply enrich the field of primatology, and is
    able to offer years of expertise on this subject.
        Dr. Goodall, you may begin your testimony. Would you please
    move closer? See that the microphone is placed close to her.
    Yes.

                STATEMENT OF DR. JANE GOODALL, FOUNDER,
                       THE JANE GOODALL INSTITUTE

        Ms. Goodall. I am a bit off the table here. So first of
    all, I am very, very glad that I was able to fit in coming here
    this morning to add my testimony to the Captive, what is it,
    the Captive Primate Safety Act. And I would like to add some
    comments to the written testimony that I believe you already
    have in your possession.
        And I speak on behalf of the Jane Goodall Institute, as
    well as very many years of working mostly with chimpanzees,
    both in the wild and in captive situations, in Africa and
    throughout the United States, and also in Europe. And obviously
    during this time, I have had experience with other nonhuman
    primates, as well.
        And I speak from the vantage point of studying these
    amazing beings in the wild. And we know that chimpanzees in
    particular, but the other nonhuman primates as well, have very
    complex social structures. They have long-term bonds between
    family members. It is very important to them to maintain these
    bonds. In chimps, this can mean supportive relationships
    between family members lasting through a life of over 60 years.
        And when the mother/child bond is broken, we find that this
    leaves psychological scars on the youngster. The baby may even
    die if removed from its mother.
        So now when we come to consider chimpanzees being kept as
    pets, or other nonhuman primates being kept as pets--and I put
    pets in quotes, because they don't make good pets. And when
    they are small, they can seem cuddly and cute and sweet. But
    they very quickly grow up and grow stronger.
        Chimpanzees of a certain age--five, six--can be stronger
    than a man, a human male. And they do not wish to be a human
    child dressed up in silly clothes, as they are often kept. So
    they can become----
        [Buzzer sounds.]
        Ms. Goodall. does that mean I have to stop?
        Ms. Bordallo. No, no.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Bordallo. You continue, Doctor. That is another signal.
        Ms. Goodall. OK. So at the age of five or six, they can be
    potentially dangerous. They can escape. And the dangers to
    human beings include not only biting--and they are strong. Let
    me show you as part of my testimony that my two thumbs are of
    different lengths, and that was an encounter with a captive
    chimpanzee. So they can be very strong. They are potentially
    dangerous. They have no business being kept in people's houses.
        Monkeys, some are very small, but even they can bite. They
    have needle-sharp teeth. And just as a human bite can inflict
    you with a--a human bite is said to be the worst of all bites
    because of the infection. Well, nonhuman primate bites--it is
    the same thing.
        So these beings that you take into your house can become
    quite quickly a liability. They can escape and inflict injuries
    on other people. They are incredibly smart, so they can find
    ways to escape. So as they get older, and again I particularly
    talk about chimpanzees because I know them best, it is very
    hard to contain them in a home in a way that means that the
    general public is safe, or the members in the household are
    safe.
        So we find that either the pet owner must give away the
    chimpanzee or other primate. And because bonds have probably
    been created between the human and the nonhuman, this is
    anguish for the human, and it is devastating for the nonhuman
    primate.
        If they are kept in the home, they are usually maintained
    in inappropriate cages, sometimes in garages or other, you
    know, inappropriate places. We have been to see them. We get
    calls to have a look at or find out about these captive
    primates. People report them to the Jane Goodall Institute. We
    either go ourselves or send somebody to see. And it is pretty
    grim reports coming in about chimpanzees, macaques, marmosets,
    and other primates who are in positions where they shouldn't
    be.
        If you don't keep them in the house and you give them away
    and you go through the anguish, what happens to them? Major
    zoos either don't want to take them because they don't know how
    to behave like normal primates, because they haven't had a
    chance to learn, and so they end up in poor wayside zoos, again
    in inappropriate situations; or they are handed to medical
    research labs, where this pampered little creature, who has had
    all possible amenities in the house, now is in a five-foot-by-
    five-foot cage if it is a chimpanzee, or a smaller one if it is
    some other smaller nonhuman primate. And the quality of life is
    completely changed.
        Or they go back to become breeders for the entertainment
    industry. And that in itself is something which we need to
    stop. And you know, again, I have seen ways that these primates
    are trained.
        The nonhuman primates harbor many diseases, viruses, and
    retroviruses which are extremely dangerous to us, which can be
    passed off with a bite, or spitting, or you know, any kind of
    contamination. That includes things like Ebola virus, to kind
    of go to the worst, but also TB, herpes-B, and so forth.
        And so the dangers to us and the damage to the primate are
    of equal concern to us. They simply do not belong as pets. And
    I fully, fully support this bill.
        There is a possibility of sending these animals to
    sanctuaries, but those are usually full and over-funded--under-
    funded. So I think that is sufficient to convey my extreme
    disapproval of primates as pets.
        But I would, since I am here, I would also like to add one
    word in support of the Bear Protection Act.
        I have been in Asia. I have seen the conditions of the
    bears being milked for their bile. The more that the trade in
    bile is approved by the United States, the harder it is to stop
    this barbaric practice in Asia and other countries. So I would
    fully, fully support the Bear Protection Act.
        I think killing bears for their parts is not appropriate in
    a civilized part of the world. So I would like to add my
    support for that bill, as well.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Goodall follows:]

                    Statement of Dr. Jane Goodall, Founder,
                           The Jane Goodall Institute

        Thank you for this opportunity to express my strong support for the
    Captive Primate Safety Act. It is a pleasure to be here on this
    important matter.
        The Jane Goodall Institute is dedicated to ensuring that captive
    primates receive the attention and care they deserve--attention and
    care which cannot be provided by the average pet owner. We therefore
    fully support the legislation introduced by Representative Eddie
    Bernice Johnson to prohibit the interstate commerce of monkeys,
    chimpanzees and other primates as pets.
        Non-human primates seem attractive as pets largely due to their
    close physical and behavioral similarities to humans. But, due in part
    to the genetic similarities we share, all non-human primates can carry
    a variety of rare and sometimes fatal diseases and viruses that can be
    contracted by humans, including tuberculosis, herpes-B, hepatitis, and
    Ebola.
        All too often, well-intentioned animal enthusiasts will attempt to
    raise and care for an infant primate, such as a chimpanzee. But
    chimpanzees and other primates grow up quickly. In fact, by the age of
    five, chimpanzees are often stronger than human adults. They become
    destructive, difficult to contain, and dangerous. When they escape--a
    risk that is much greater when they are moved from one place to
    another--they may pose a unique threat to public health and safety, and
    their capture can be costly. Many kinds of monkeys, marmosets, lemurs
    and other prosimians are in homes across America. These animals can
    infect us with disease and inflict serious bites.
        While some pet owners take steps to tame or control their non-human
    primate pets, these measures often are inhumane or not reliable.
    Regardless of the steps taken to tame and control non-human primates,
    once they reach sexual maturity it can be difficult if not impossible
    to contain and appropriately care for them, for essentially they remain
    wild animals. As a consequence, a once pampered member of the family is
    relegated to a small, inappropriate cage, often in a basement or garage
    because, when free, they can, and will, bite. Non-human primate owners
    have lost fingers, suffered facial and other physical damage and
    contracted dangerous diseases from their ``pets.''
        Non-human primates--even the small species such as tamarins or
    marmosets--have complicated needs that are impossible for the average
    pet owner to provide. Non-human primates are behaviorally more like us,
    and as such they are uniquely intelligent creatures and need complex
    sensory stimuli to meet their psychological needs. They need space and
    a rich environment; they need social groups within which they can
    establish social bonds for, above all, most non-human primates are
    highly social creatures. Keeping them alone is psychologically
    stressful and damaging, as is moving them from one place to another.
        When kept as ``pets,'' once they reach maturity and are no longer
    manageable, those individuals who are not placed in small, barren
    enclosures are often sold or donated to unaccredited zoos or research
    institutions, or euthanized.
        It is time for us to end this dangerous, selfish and inhumane
    trade. Non-human primates of all sizes have complex minds,
    personalities and emotions and do not belong in our homes and pet
    shops.
        I applaud the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans for
    considering this important legislation. I urge you to do all you can to
    pass it. In doing so, you will be promoting public health and safety,
    as well as taking a reasonable and sound step toward protecting these
    amazing wild creatures.
        In addition, while I am here to support the Captive Primate Safety
    Act, I am also concerned for all wildlife and feel that it is vital to
    prevent poaching, whether it's related to the bushmeat trade or the
    slaughter of wild animals for their parts or products made from them. I
    would like to express my complete support to stop the trade in bear
    gallbladders and bear bile. I have seen the terrible suffering this
    inflicts on these animals. I strongly support the Bear Protection Act
    and hope you will approve it when the time comes.
                                     ______

      Response to questions submitted for the record by Dr. Jane Goodall,
                             Jane Goodall Institute

    Questions from Chairwoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU)
    1.  In your experience, should nonhuman primates be kept as pets?
        Nonhuman primates should not be kept as pets. Nonhuman primates are
    unpredictable. There is a lot of irresponsible selling of them.
    Regardless of the steps taken to tame and control nonhuman primates,
    once they reach sexual maturity it can be difficult, if not impossible,
    to contain and appropriately care for them, for essentially they remain
    wild animals. Nonhuman primates can spread diseases that pose serious
    health risks to humans, including herpes B, tuberculosis, hepatitis,
    Ebola, and monkeypox. Nonhuman primates can become aggressive and
    unmanageable as they mature. Since I began my studies of wild
    chimpanzees in 1960, I have only been seriously harmed by a chimpanzee
    once and that was by a captive chimpanzee.
        Aside from the safety and health concerns I have for people in
    contact with nonhuman primates, I am also concerned for the welfare of
    the creatures themselves. Nonhuman primate infants sold as pets are in
    most cases separated from their mothers at an early age. The stress of
    the separation and the absence of the biological mother can cause
    social, psychological, maternal, and sexual developmental damage.
    Nonhuman primates require a specialized diet, the companionship of
    other nonhuman primates, and housing in very large enclosures--needs
    the average pet owner cannot meet. For all these reasons and more,
    nonhuman primates do not make suitable pets.
    2.  We've heard that infant nonhuman primates can grow up to become
            maladjusted, further encouraging their isolation. In general,
            what quality of life can we expect these animals to enjoy?
        Infant nonhuman primates kept as pets face a rather dim outlook for
    the future. Nonhuman primates are highly intelligent and possess a
    range of emotions much like our own. Homes are not large enough to keep
    them content. Nonhuman primates require constant enrichment and
    stimulation, which the majority of pet owners do not have the time,
    funds, or skills to provide. The common practice in the pet trade of
    prematurely separating an infant nonhuman primate from its mother can
    cause long term damage and has serious implications for the primate's
    future welfare.
        Nonhuman primates are not born with intrinsic responses that will
    dictate their behavior in complex social situations. Much like a human
    mother, a chimpanzee's mother is responsible for shaping and cushioning
    the infant's first interactions with other individuals. A chimpanzee
    infant may acquire a good deal of knowledge vicariously during the
    months when he is firmly attached to his mother's breast, sensing her
    fear, excitement, or pleasure. Through trial and error, social
    facilitation, observation and imitation, and practice, a young
    chimpanzee learns the nuances of chimp etiquette from his mother and
    family members. If a nonhuman primate is to live amongst his own kind,
    he must be familiar with and able to respond to these species specific
    behaviors. Wild chimpanzees are not weaned from their mother until
    between the ages of four and seven. Yet, offspring continue to travel
    and interact with mothers long after weaning. Relationships between a
    mother and her offspring, as well as between siblings, continue
    throughout all of life.
        Infant nonhuman primates who have been separated prematurely from
    their mother and have not been socialized will often times be unable to
    successfully integrate with their own kind. These nonhuman primates
    lack the social skills that their mother and family members would have
    otherwise instilled in them. Some nonhuman primates may display
    abnormal behaviors such as body-rocking, self biting, and intense
    aggression. Socially deprived nonhuman primates in many cases never
    learn how to copulate or care for their young.
        When kept as ``pets,'' once they reach maturity and are no longer
    manageable, those individuals who are not placed in small, barren
    enclosures are often sold or donated to unaccredited zoos or research
    institutions, or euthanized. Many ``pet'' nonhuman primates do not
    possess the social skills to integrate effectively with the same
    species. Most accredited zoos will not accept them because they lack
    the social skills to fit into established nonhuman primate groups. The
    large majority of accredited zoos and sanctuaries also do not have the
    funds or space to properly house, feed, and care for additional
    nonhuman primates.
    3.  Can you elaborate on the physical and social environments that are
            required by these animals? Can human beings substitute for the
            needs of these animals in the wild?
        Nonhuman primates are our closest living relatives, and as such
    they are uniquely intelligent creatures and need complex sensory
    stimuli to meet their psychological needs. Chimpanzees need space and a
    rich environment; they need social groups within which they can
    establish social bonds for, above all, most nonhuman primates are
    highly social creatures. Keeping them alone is psychologically
    stressful and damaging, as is moving them from one place to another.
        Every chimpanzee is given the best care by their biological mother.
    I encourage the rearing of nonhuman primates by their mothers whenever
    possible. Only specially trained people, such as those of accredited
    zoos and sanctuaries, who possess a deep understanding of the
    communicative and behavioral patterns of adult nonhuman primates, are
    in a position to supply the enrichment, extensive time, facilities, and
    peer exposure to properly raise a nonhuman primate. Very few nonhuman
    primate owners have the experience, training, funds, facilities, or
    time required to properly care for these creatures.
                                     ______

        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Doctor. Your expertise
    is recognized by the committee, and of course your full
    statement will be included for the record.
        I will now recognize members for any questions they may
    wish to ask, alternating between the Majority and the Minority.
    And I am going to give my Ranking Member the first occasion to
    ask some questions, and I will act later.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madame Chair. And thank you very much
    for taking your time to come and be with us this morning to
    talk about an issue that is out here, and a lot of people have
    major concerns. And it is good to hear the different sides of
    this particular issue.
        My first question would be to Dr. Golab. Are there
    currently any Federal laws that prohibit the interstate travel
    of domestic and agricultural animals who have the ability to
    transfer various diseases to the public? And do you support the
    enactment of such laws? If not, then this legislation is an
    example of selectively enforcing enforcement against nonhuman
    primate owners.
        Ms. Golab. What is the question?
        Ms. Bordallo. I think we need to repeat the question.
        Mr. Brown. OK. I am sorry we don't have eye contact, and
    that is the reason I moved over during your presentation, so we
    could have that eye contact. But OK, I will repeat it.
        Are there currently any Federal laws that prohibit the
    interstate travel of domestic and agricultural animals who have
    the ability to transfer various diseases to the public? And do
    you support the enactment of such laws? If not, then this
    legislation is an example of selective enforcement against
    nonhuman primate owners.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Brown. Dr. Golab is who the question is directed to.
        Ms. Goodall. Yes, you are directing the question to me?
        Mr. Brown. No, ma'am, I was directing it to Dr. Gail Golab.
        Ms. Goodall. Oh. Apologies.
        Mr. Brown. Sorry. I got one for you, though.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Golab. The American Veterinary Medical Association is
    very opposed to private ownership of nonhuman primates for the
    reasons that I stated.
        The reality is that many of the incidents that occur
    actually happen when nonhuman primates are exposed to those
    other than their owners. One of the most frequent times that
    those incidents occur is during interstate transport.
        Also during interstate transport, there is the opportunity
    for escapes. Any time you have the opportunity for escapes, you
    have the opportunity for introduction of an animal into the
    wild. And when you have the opportunity for the introduction of
    the animal into the wild, you have an opportunity for providing
    reservoirs of disease.
        In terms of zoonotic diseases, one of the problems that we
    have with nonhuman primates is that because they are so close
    to humans, transmission of diseases between humans and nonhuman
    primates is quite simple.
        For example, herpes simplex in people causes often mild
    disease that is along the line of cold sores. However, when
    that particular virus ends up in a marmoset, for example, it
    can cause very, very serious disease.
        You have more problems in nonhuman primates than you have,
    in terms of bite exposure, with domestic animals, because
    again, you are so close in a phylogenetic tree with these
    animals, and diseases are very, very much more easily
    transmitted between nonhuman primates and people.
        Mr. Brown. Dr. Evans, do you agree with that statement?
        Ms. Evans. Do I agree with the statement that, which? The
    final statement?
        Mr. Brown. The transmission of diseases.
        Ms. Evans. It is absolutely true that nonhuman primates and
    human primates share many diseases. But typically, the risk is
    to the nonhuman primates.
        Tuberculosis, for example, is a human disease. And yes,
    nonhuman primates can contract it, but they get it from humans.
    And childhood diseases can cause problems in 7-year-old
    monkeys. And it is for this reason that many pet primate owners
    vaccinate their pets, and also have them TB tested regularly,
    to protect them from these threats.
        But I don't know of any documented public health threat
    from nonhuman primate pets to the human population. I mean,
    such-and-such may happen, such-and-such could happen; but as
    far as I am aware, there is nothing documented in the
    literature.
        Mr. Brown. And I guess that is my point, and that brings me
    to my next question. Please explain why nonhuman primates kept
    as pets pose a health risk to the public, but those living in
    sanctuaries and zoos don't pose the same risk.
        Ms. Golab. I would like to respond to that question with an
    interesting comment. AVMA has an animal welfare committee, and
    on that animal welfare committee we have representatives of a
    broad range of veterinary medical practices, including zoo
    animal medicine.
        The zoo animal representative on our animal welfare
    committee is very, very well respected for working not only
    with primates, but with a number of various species. And also
    has a reputation for being somewhat fearless in terms of
    working with those species.
        His comment to me was he was perfectly comfortable working
    with nonhuman primates in sanctuaries, in research facilities,
    and in zoos. But he absolutely refuses to work with nonhuman
    primates in private practices, because of the risk to himself
    and to his staff.
        Mr. Brown. Then I don't understand the differences between
    the interaction between participants in a zoo than somebody
    living every day with them. I don't understand.
        And I guess what I am trying to sort out in my own mind is
    that I noted it was alluded that, you know, when the babies are
    taken from their moms, that they become depressed, even die.
    And I am wondering if there is a similar reaction with, you
    know, when people exchange these kittens and puppies, and what
    kind of a dialogue do those, you know, those families might
    have.
        I am just trying to sort it out in my own mind, you know,
    the differences between one group of animals and another group
    of animals. And that is the reason I am leading out with those
    questions.
        Ms. Golab. One of the most significant differences is that
    in zoos and in research facilities, you have individuals who
    are trained, and they are trained in appropriate biosecurity
    practices. And so although the risk is there, the risk is
    decreased because you have individuals that know how to deal
    with those situations.
        We also have reports of transmissions that have occurred in
    research facilities, that occur in the literature for some of
    these zoonotic diseases. And so we know that those indeed are a
    risk.
        When it comes to domestic animals, one of the biggest
    differences that you have between nonhuman primates and
    domestic animals is just that. Domestic animals, like dogs and
    cats, have been domesticated for thousands of years. Nonhuman
    primates may have been bred for generations, but they are still
    wild animals. And so the predictability of the behavior of
    domestic dogs and cats as compared with the predictability of
    the behavior of a nonhuman primate is hugely different.
        Mr. Brown. But it is still confusing to me why the disease
    transfer would not take place between the interaction between
    the zoo visitors and the animals, with so many people passing
    through, and why it would be more inherent to a closed
    environment, like keeping a pet at home. I mean, it just
    confuses me that that logic is there.
        Does anybody else want to comment on that? Dr. Evans, do
    you?
        Ms. Evans. I think I mentioned earlier that in my
    experience, that pet primates are freer of disease than
    primates in research laboratories and primates in zoos, in
    large part because of the way they have been bred. Sometimes
    because the infant is removed from the mother, and there is no
    further contact with that species. And also because they are
    vaccinated, they are kept in a very clean environment in their
    homes. They don't always have contact with other nonhuman
    primates, you know, which has its drawbacks. But I do not think
    that there is a serious, or even--I do not think there is a
    public health threat from pet primates to the general public.
        I think we are encouraging fear unnecessarily. And primates
    are wonderful. They are marvelous.
        Mr. Brown. I thank you very much. And Madame Chair, I know
    my time is over. Thanks for your tolerance.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
        Mr. Brown. And thanks to the witnesses for those comments.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. I do have a couple of
    questions for the witnesses.
        The first is to Dr. Gail Golab. You mentioned in your
    testimony that it was difficult to find veterinarians that are
    willing to care for nonhuman primates kept as pets. Can you
    elaborate, or give an example of this?
        Ms. Golab. I had mentioned the individual on our animal
    welfare committee earlier, who actually is currently employed
    by a university and is often asked to consult with those
    animals.
        In the 76,000 members of the American Veterinary Medical
    Association, only 170 of those members actually consistently
    have contact with primates. And a majority of those members are
    actually employed either by zoos or by research institutions.
    And so the number of individuals that are available in private
    practice to care for nonhuman primates is quite limited.
        Ms. Bordallo. So are there special qualifications for a vet
    to be able to care for the primates?
        Ms. Golab. We do have several boarded specialties. One of
    those happens to be in the area of zoological medicine, and we
    also have boarded veterinarians in laboratory animal medicine.
    You may have individuals in both of those fields that are
    qualified.
        Your typical veterinarian in a community practice is not
    going to be seeing a lot of nonhuman primates. And chances are
    that that veterinarian is going to be looking to call somebody
    else in to see that animal. And that is actually one of AVMA's
    concerns regarding the welfare of these animals.
        One of the questions that has come up is that the reason
    that you need to have interstate transport of primates is to
    seek veterinary care. The problem with that is that when you
    own a pet, or if you privately own an animal, you have certain
    responsibilities to that animal. You are expected to understand
    an animal's needs and provide it with appropriate nutrition and
    appropriate housing. You are also expected to provide it with
    appropriate veterinary care.
        American Veterinary Medical Association has some concerns
    when the only way you can get appropriate medical care for that
    animal is to take it into the next state. That, in by itself,
    is a good reason for why you should not be owning that animal.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. I have, I know Dr.
    Goodall will be leaving soon, and I have a question for her.
        Other witnesses have commented on the fact that wild
    nonhuman primates are acutely aware of their place in the
    larger social structure, and that this applies to captive
    nonhuman primates as well. How does this affect a captive
    primate's behavior, especially in relation to children?
        Ms. Goodall. Well, the trouble is that we are talking about
    a lot of different species when we talk about nonhuman
    primates. At one end you have chimpanzees, with whom we share
    98.24 or six, depending on where you come from, 98-point-
    something percent of our DNA. And you know, we have an immune
    system almost identical, which is why they are used as guinea
    pigs to learn more about human medicine. And then on the other
    end you have the marmosets, who are obviously far more
    different.
        So the answer--what was your question again? I got carried
    away. What was the actual question?
        Ms. Bordallo. OK. Some of the witnesses here have commented
    on the fact that wild nonhuman primates are acutely aware of
    their place in the larger social structure, and that this
    applied to captive nonhuman primates, as well.
        How does this affect a captive primate's behavior,
    especially toward children?
        Ms. Goodall. Well, you know, OK. So this is where I was
    leading. It is different. It is different with a marmoset to a
    chimpanzee. And the danger posed by a marmoset or a chimpanzee
    would be very different.
        A chimpanzee can kill a child. A marmoset can't. A marmoset
    can only bite. And there are stories--I mean, also these
    individuals have different personalities. We are not dealing
    with just a lump of marmosets who all behave the same way, or a
    whole sea of chimpanzees behaving--they behave differently,
    just as we do.
        So of course there are going to be wonderful bonds between
    a particular nonhuman primate, a particular human, a particular
    child. And it can be wonderful. But most people simply aren't
    able to deal with nonhuman primates in their home, because they
    shouldn't really be there.
        And they do indeed remain wild animals. They are
    unpredictable. So that even when you have this wonderful
    relationship, there can be a sudden, something will trigger an
    outburst of aggression. They are very volatile.
        And I am not saying that there can't be a great bond
    between a person and a monkey or a chimp. There can, absolutely
    can. But also, you know, it is not where they belong. And most
    people, when they buy--I mean, you can buy a primate on the
    internet. I have known people who bought a baby chimp because
    they were told this is the species that doesn't get into the
    big, dangerous kind. This one stays small.
        There is a lot of irresponsible selling of primates, and
    people are buying them when they know nothing about them. There
    is no requirement that they have to learn. They can just take
    this little being into their home, and then often the smaller
    ones die because they simply are not looked after. They don't
    get the right diet. And it is a tragedy for the owner, as well
    as for the little being who has been taken from his or her
    mother.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Doctor.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Wittman from the State of
    Virginia.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
        Dr. Golab, I am interested that there is a variety of
    professional opinion about some of the public health aspects of
    disease transmission between nonhuman primates and human
    primates. And you speak that there is evidence out there.
        I would be interested in the specifics of those evidence.
    Can you cite the referee, the medical publications, or any
    formal public health disease reporting system that indicates an
    instance of disease transmission?
        Ms. Golab. If you actually--in my written testimony, which
    has more detail, there are a number, I am going to say 27 or 28
    cited references in that testimony.
        Some of those cited references actually deal with disease
    risk. And one of the things that you have to keep in mind is
    that we do have quite a few controls on ownership of these
    animals in the U.S., including prohibitions on ownership in
    many states.
        We also know that as a result of some of those
    prohibitions, and also as a result of importation prohibitions,
    we reduce the number of cases that exist.
        We are also aware that there is a black market out there in
    these animals, and the risk of importing these animals,
    particularly animals that may be imported for purposes of pets,
    that may not be as well screened because they don't have the
    controls in place, there definitely is risk there for disease.
        There is a report actually from CDC dealing with herpes-B
    virus in macaques. And so we do know that that risk is there.
    And if you speak to zoo veterinarians in particular, and those
    that work with primates, one of their significant concerns is
    naturalization of these animals in the southern United States
    because of concerns down there about yellow fever. Nonhuman
    primates can serve as reservoirs of yellow fever. And so that
    is an ongoing prevalent concern for those individuals.
        Mr. Wittman. And you cite about 15,000 nonhuman primates.
    Can you tell me, of those that you speak of, how many of those
    are captured in the wild, and how many are imported from
    outside of the United States?
        Ms. Golab. No, unfortunately I can't. And our tracking
    systems, that is another one of our problem. Our tracking
    systems for nonhuman primates again, other than those that are
    within already regulated facilities, are always going to be a
    little bit on the fuzzy side.
        And so if you look at estimates for the number of primates
    that actually exist, you definitely will see some variation.
        Mr. Wittman. Well, of those pets that are held by
    individual owners, are you advocating then that if this Act
    were to pass, that those primates, nonhuman primates be
    released into the wild?
        Ms. Golab. Now, this is a really interesting question.
    Because what this particular piece of legislation does, it
    doesn't necessarily directly affect those private individuals
    that own animals in particular states where ownership is legal.
    What it does is it prohibits them from transporting those
    animals across state lines. And in those situations you
    increase contact with unfamiliar individuals, and you increase
    your potential for escape.
        So people will still be able to own those animals. However,
    they won't be able to transport them. And because AVMA is not
    supportive of private ownership of these animals in the first
    place, our hope is that that will reduce the acquisition of
    those animals, and eventually severely reduce the number of
    such animals that are privately held.
        Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
    Wittman. And now I recognize the gentlelady from California,
    Ms. Capps.
        Ms. Capps. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chair, for calling
    this hearing together, and to each of our witnesses for your
    testimony on two very important topics.
        Dr. Goodall, you are a hero to so many constituents in my
    Congressional district, and I want to thank you for your
    pioneering work, that now hopefully we have a whole new
    generation to become more educated about the work that you have
    done with nonhuman primates.
        I want to particularly make sure in the record that we note
    an organization that you began, which is called Roots and
    Shoots, which is focused on our young people. Because that is
    how I want to direct my question to you, although I am very
    interested also in the fact that in addition to founding the
    Jane Goodall Institute, you are also a U.N. messenger of peace.
    And I think some time we could have a hearing, Madame Chair, on
    the ways in which our nonhuman primates can teach us a lot
    about peace.
        But the Roots and Shoots is a great organization that
    focuses on the natural interest that young people have in
    monkeys, in nonhuman primates, and the great interest they have
    in learning so much about ways that we can protect them. And
    you have designed this so that there are chapters, I believe
    all around the world.
        My question is, can we hope to raise a generation of people
    who will not seek to have these nonhuman primates as pets,
    understanding what happens to them? And maybe you would want to
    tell us a little bit about the kind of quality of life that
    many of them have to experience is isolation because they are
    so much like humans in that they require their own social
    setting.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Goodall. Well, the program you refer to, Roots and
    Shoots, yes, it is in 97 countries around the world. And it is
    involving young people in improving the lives of the human
    community, nonhuman animals, including domestic ones, and the
    environment, as well as learning to live in peace and harmony
    with each other, but also with animals in the natural world.
        And so the aim and the goal of Roots and Shoots is that
    while we are all working to save chimpanzees, to protect
    nonhuman primates from being pets and all the rest of it;
    unless we are raising new generations to do better than we have
    done, we may as well give up. Because we can all be working and
    testifying and getting bills passed, and then if the next
    generations pay no attention, it is going to be pretty sad.
        So indeed, all around the world I get letters from young
    people who have seen the documentaries, read the films, taken
    part in Roots and Shoots, and understand that the place for a
    wild animal is not usually in somebody's home. Although again,
    I want to make quite clear, I am not saying that a nonhuman
    primate cannot be happy in a home. It can, if it is the right
    person. But what I think is so important to realize is that the
    general run of people are not equipped to take care of the
    psychological, let alone the physical, needs of these, of these
    nonhuman--I don't like nonhuman--other-than-human primates.
        Ms. Capps. They are very much like humans.
        Ms. Goodall. What is a nonhuman? A nonhuman is a non, it is
    a non-something.
        Ms. Capps. Right.
        Ms. Goodall. So I prefer to call them other-than-human
    primates, or primate beings.
        Ms. Capps. Thank you very much. With the time that I have
    remaining, Mr. Wissinger, I wanted to switch to the other piece
    of legislation if I could, and ask you if you think a Federal
    law such as the Bear Protection Act could have a deterrent
    effect.
        In other words, if poachers or smugglers knew that there
    was a Federal law prohibiting their activities, might they
    think twice about what their criminal enterprises will lead to?
        Mr. Wissinger. Absolutely, yes. In my observations and in
    discussions with many people who have been defendants and been
    prosecuted through a state or Federal court system, there is,
    first of all, had been a lack of fear of the system.
        Ms. Capps. Right.
        Mr. Wissinger. But simply the word Federal just----
        Ms. Capps. The feds, you mean?
        Mr. Wissinger.--just simply correlates something much worse
    than--whether it is or it is not is another matter--in the
    minds of many people and their families.
        Ms. Capps. Could I just direct this--I know the red button
    went on, but could you mention one word about the need for
    additional forensic support to assist with criminal wildlife
    investigations? Are you referring, for example, to the Fish and
    Wildlife Service Laboratory in Oregon? What more should we be
    doing in this area?
        Mr. Wissinger. Well, currently the National Lab in Ashland,
    Oregon is basically, as far as I know, as of today still the
    only species-specific-capable laboratory that is readily
    available to law enforcement agencies, particularly at the
    state level.
        And as of my retirement, that laboratory service for that
    particular species-specific type of work was simply not
    available, just due to workload factors.
        Ms. Capps. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to go over.
        Ms. Bordallo. The Chairwoman thanks the gentlelady from
    California, Mrs. Capps.
        And now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the
    full Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska, Mr.
    Young.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Mr. Schoenke, how
    many people belong to the American Hunters and Shooters
    Association?
        Mr. Schoenke. We are a new organization, sir, and we are
    very proud of what we have done in a year and a half.
        Mr. Young. How many belong?
        Mr. Schoenke. We have several thousand.
        Mr. Young. Several thousand. It is ironic that you support
    this protection bill, and I have a list of 20-odd-some members
    that are fish-and-wildlife-associated conservation groups that
    oppose it, primarily because they claim it is an unnecessary
    intrusion to the State Wildlife Management authorities. That
    any interstate movement of viscera to and from a state where
    possession, use, and sale is not legal is already subject to
    prosecution under the Lacey Act. And CITES governs import and
    export. The U.S. and North American populations are healthy,
    robust and, in fact, expanding in most areas. And while
    poaching will occur and has occurred, and will continue to
    occur regardless of Federal law, the Lacey Act covers it. And
    that this bill would have arguably a minimal effect on Asian
    bear populations, which are most subject to poaching for
    viscera, because under intense pressure from habitat loss.
        Now, where do you come off supporting this bill?
        Mr. Schoenke. Well, let me say first of all, Mr.
    Congressman, American Hunters and Shooters Association came
    about because there are millions of hunters and shooters who
    are looking for a responsible and more moderate----
        Mr. Young. Are you saying the other groups aren't
    responsible?
        Mr. Schoenke. I am saying that they are not responsible in
    the sense----
        Mr. Young. They are not responsible. That is what you are
    saying.
        Mr. Schoenke. Yes, sir, I am saying that.
        Mr. Young. OK, that is what we want to know.
        Mr. Schoenke. OK. And the stance--wait a minute, hold on
    here. You asked me a question.
        Mr. Young. You are the fringe group.
        Mr. Schoenke. Let me answer the question, sir.
        Mr. Young. You are the fringe group.
        Mr. Schoenke. Let me answer the question.
        Mr. Young. Do you hear me? OK, now.
        Mr. Schoenke. Hold on here. If you are going to try to
    intimidate me----
        Mr. Young. Madame Chairman, he is the witness, and I can
    ask him whatever I want to ask him. Do you understand that?
        Mr. Schoenke. Let me answer the question.
        Ms. Bordallo. The members of the committee--this is our
    hearing.
        Mr. Schoenke. I understand that, Madame Chairwoman. I
    apologize for----
        Mr. Young. You may have played football, but don't get
    smart with me.
        Mr. Schoenke. If the Congressman is going to ask me a
    question, let me give him, let him have the respect to let me
    answer the question.
        Ms. Bordallo. All right. Just proceed with the answer.
        Mr. Schoenke. OK. Our organization, American Hunters and
    Shooters Association, came about because there are millions of
    hunters and shooters who are looking for a more responsible
    approach to hunting and shooting, conservation, and protection
    of wildlife.
        Because of that, we were founded. And we feel that this
    Bear Act is exactly that: it is the protection of wildlife.
        In talking with Mr. Hogan here, while we disagree, we also
    understand there is a problem here on poaching. That it is very
    easy to go into small areas within this country and wipe out a
    bear population. As a hunter and a shooter, I understand that.
    There is documented evidence to that effect.
        So is this a good Act? And we think it is. It is
    responsible, it is appropriate, and we support it.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Young. Mr. Hogan, you are speaking from your experience
    as Deputy Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Would you
    conclude this bill would assist the Service in filling its
    highest priority needs?
        Mr. Hogan. No, Mr. Chairman or Mr. Congressman, I would
    not. The Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Program does
    a tremendous job, but I would argue that they are probably well
    understaffed. And their focus is really on species that are
    threatened with extinction, threatened or endangered.
        Black bears, as you know, are healthy. North American Black
    Bears are healthy throughout their range. And I really don't
    believe that this would assist the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        And furthermore, as you noted, the Lacey Act, the Federal
    law that would criminalize any activity that is a violation of
    state law once it is brought into interstate commerce exists.
    So the Fish and Wildlife Service has the Federal authority to
    prosecute any bear that is illegally taken.
        And I think the distinction here is that there is a
    perception that bears are illegally harvested and then sold. By
    definition, when a bear is poached, it has broken a state law.
    As soon as it goes into interstate commerce, it now violates
    state law and the Lacey Act, so there is state and Federal law
    able to be brought to bear against anyone who perpetuates that
    crime.
        So I don't believe it would add, give anything to the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Program that they
    don't already have.
        Mr. Young. Mr. Hogan, you are familiar with the WWF TRAFFIC
    North American report, ``In the Black.'' This report has a
    number of specific conclusions and recommendations.
        Do you recall whether the report recommended enactment of
    the Federal Bear Protection Act? And why not take this
    approach?
        Mr. Hogan. They concluded that they did not think Federal
    legislation in this area was necessary in their report.
        Mr. Young. You know, people don't understand why I am
    excited about this. This would cover every bear killed, legal
    or poached. And I happen to represent people that have this
    problem that in fact will transport parts of that bear maybe to
    the grandma and grandmother, and grandfather and the grandson.
    I don't know.
        But to put them in the case, under this law--now the Lacey
    Act already covers this--as poached, is inappropriate. We have
    a tendency to sit in this committee, and people have outside
    interests organized so they can get a paycheck. But they cannot
    understand how it affects other people legally. And any bill we
    pass here, you better darn well make sure that a legally taken
    bear is not covered under this bill, period. If you do that,
    then you are imposing again the, I call it the armchair
    urbanized urbanites on people that live in the rural areas.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young.
        There being no further questions, the Chair would now like
    to thank the panel, the first panel of witnesses, and to
    welcome the second panel.
        Mr. Brown. Madame Chair.
        Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
        Mr. Brown. I would like to enter into the record the
    statements in the black.
        Ms. Bordallo. OK. It has been asked that we enter into the
    record the report, `In the Black: Status, Management, and Trade
    of the American Black Bear.'' There being no objection, so
    ordered.
        [NOTE: The report ``In the Black'' by Douglas F. Williamson
    dated April 2002 has been retained in the Committee's official
    files.]
        Ms. Bordallo. Second panel, will you please be seated? For
    those observers in the back, would you like to come forward and
    take a seat here? We have some empty chairs. We like everybody
    to be seated during our committee hearings. Anywhere, right
    around this horseshoe here.
        Please be seated, everyone. The Chairwoman now recognizes
    our second panel of witnesses.
        Our witnesses on this panel include the following: Mr.
    Benito Perez, Chief of Law Enforcement, United States Fish and
    Wildlife Service; Mr. Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of the
    Humane Society of the United States; and Mr. Steve Ross,
    Supervisor of Behavioral and Cognitive Research, and Chair of
    the AZA Chimpanzee Species Survival Plan, from the Lincoln Park
    Zoo.
        I now recognize Mr. Perez to testify for five minutes. And
    gentlemen, I would note once again for the all the witnesses
    that the red timing light on the table will indicate when your
    time concludes. And be assured that your full written statement
    will be submitted for the hearing record.
        This committee does watch the timing light, so please try
    to check it out. When it is red, your time is up.
        Mr. Perez, please begin.

                 STATEMENT OF BENITO A. PEREZ, CHIEF,
            LAW ENFORCEMENT, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        Mr. Perez. Madame Chairwoman and members of the
    Subcommittee, I am Benito Perez, Chief of the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service's Office of Law Enforcement. I am pleased to
    be here to discuss H.R. 5534, the Bear Protection Act of 2008,
    and H.R. 2964, the Captive Primate Safety Act.
        As members of the Subcommittee are aware, the Service is
    the lead Federal agency for wildlife law enforcement. The
    strategic goals and objectives of our law enforcement program
    include preventing unlawful trade of foreign fish, wildlife,
    and plants, as well as protecting the nation's fish, wildlife,
    and plants from unlawful exploitation.
        The Administration has reviewed H.R. 5534, the Bear
    Protection Act of 2008. While we appreciate the Subcommittee's
    interest in ensuring the protection of these important animals,
    the Administration does not support passage of this
    legislation.
        Under existing laws and treaties, illegal international
    trade in bear parts and products is prohibited by both the
    Endangered Species Act and CITES. CITES regulates commerce in
    species listed in its appendices, and is implemented through
    the Endangered Species Act.
        In the United States the Lacey Act prohibits the interstate
    transport of bear parts and products when taken in violation of
    state, tribal, or foreign laws. Nearly all states currently
    prohibit the sale of black bear viscera, making the Lacey Act
    in its current form an effective tool for dealing with illegal
    trade in bear parts.
        The Administration has worked consistently under these
    authorities to ensure that activities in the United States are
    not contributing to the decline of bear populations worldwide.
        American Black Bear populations are stable or increasing
    throughout virtually the entire natural range of the species.
    Indeed, under this existing framework, state programs have
    maintained healthy bear populations here in the United States
    for some time. For this reason the Administration has long
    deferred the state management programs, and agrees with the
    states that no further measures are needed.
        H.R. 2964, the Captive Primate Safety Act, would amend the
    Lacey Act to add nonhuman primates to the definition of
    prohibited wildlife species. Consistent with our response to
    similar legislation introduced in the 109th Congress, the
    Administration does not support this change, and cannot support
    H.R. 2964.
        The Administration's primary concern with H.R. 2964 is the
    Service's ability to meet the extended enforcement mandate
    created by this provision. The Service currently enforces the
    nation's wildlife laws and treaties that are protecting
    endangered species, marine mammals, and migratory birds. Given
    the scope of the Agency's conservation mission, the limited
    manpower available and the need to focus on highest-priority
    needs, the Service currently concentrates its enforcement
    efforts on preventing illegal activities that jeopardize the
    conservation of populations of such protected species.
        H.R. 2964 would instead emphasize and expand Service
    enforcement responsibilities into an area that has historically
    been the responsibility of state agencies. By including all
    nonhuman primates in the list of prohibited wildlife species,
    this bill would also extend the Service's enforcement mandate
    to policing currently legal activities involving interstate and
    foreign commerce of captive nonhuman primates. Many of these
    species may be lawfully used for research and other purposes
    under the Animal Welfare Act.
        In addition, the mechanism created by this bill appears to
    provide, at least in some instances, coverage that is
    duplicative of existing law. The Endangered Species Act already
    prohibits the interstate sale and international trade of many
    listed nonhuman primates that have been determined to need a
    high level of protection.
        While H.R. 2964 would extend such prohibitions to
    unregulated species of primate, it would not ban private
    ownership or intrastate sale of the prohibited species.
        In our view, a better approach would be for Congress to
    work with the Department of Agriculture to identify a suitable
    way to address any public safety and humane treatment concerns
    associated with possessing nonhuman primates. Private pet
    ownership concerns may be best addressed through state laws
    that currently address these issues.
        Section 3 of H.R. 2964 would correct the technical defect
    discovered by the Service during development of implementing
    regulations for the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. While the
    Administration generally supports this change, we do not
    support the legislation in its current form.
        The Service is committed to conserving wildlife, not only
    in this country, but throughout the world. We welcome the
    Subcommittee's interest in strengthening U.S. efforts in this
    arena, and appreciate the opportunity to participate in this
    hearing.
        This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to
    respond to any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Perez follows:]

             Statement of Benito A. Perez, Chief, Law Enforcement,
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

        Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Benito
    Perez, Chief of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Office
    of Law Enforcement. I am pleased to be here today to discuss H.R. 5534,
    the ``Bear Protection Act of 2008'' and H.R. 2964, the ``Captive
    Primate Safety Act.''
        The Service is the lead Federal agency for wildlife law
    enforcement, including the enforcement of U.S. laws and treaties that
    regulate domestic and international wildlife trade. As such, the
    Service works to curb illegal wildlife trade through inspection
    activities, investigations, and international liaison and capacity
    building. The strategic goals and objectives of our Law Enforcement
    Program include ``preventing the unlawful import/export and interstate
    commerce of foreign fish, wildlife and plants'' and ``protecting the
    Nation's fish, wildlife and plants from unlawful exploitation.''
    H.R. 5534, the Bear Protection Act of 2008
        The Administration has reviewed H.R.5534, the ``Bear Protection Act
    of 2008,'' which would amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to
    prohibit the trade of bear viscera and bear viscera products in both
    interstate and international trade. The Administration appreciates the
    Subcommittee's interest in ensuring the protection of these important
    animals. The Administration does not support passage of the legislation
    as it is largely duplicative of already existing legal authority.
        Under existing laws and treaties, illegal international trade in
    bear parts and products is prohibited by both the Endangered Species
    Act (ESA) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
    Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which regulates commerce in
    species listed in its appendices and is implemented through the ESA. In
    the United States, the Lacey Act prohibits the interstate transport of
    bear parts and products when taken in violation of state, tribal, and
    foreign laws. State laws and regulations currently prohibit the sale of
    black bear viscera throughout nearly the entire range of the species,
    making the Lacey Act in its current form an effective tool for dealing
    with illegal trade in bear parts.
        The Administration has worked consistently under these authorities
    to ensure that activities in the United States are not contributing to
    the decline of bear populations nationwide or on a global scale. While
    American black bear populations are generally stable or increasing
    throughout most of the natural range of the species, there is one
    subspecies with small population numbers, the Louisiana Black Bear,
    that is listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species
    Act. Additionally, four states (LA, FL, MS, and TX) have listed the
    species as rare, threatened, or endangered under state law. The primary
    threat to these species has been habitat destruction, not poaching for
    bear viscera. State programs have generally maintained healthy bear
    populations here in the United States for some time and for this
    reason, the Administration has long deferred to state management
    programs, and agrees with the states that no further measures are
    needed at this time.
    H.R. 2964, the Captive Primate Safety Act
        H.R. 2964 would amend the Lacey Act to add non-human primates to
    the definition of ``prohibited wildlife species'' contained within 16
    U.S.C. Sec. 3371(g), expanding upon the Captive Wildlife Safety Act,
    Public Law No. 108-191, passed by Congress in 2003, which modified the
    Lacey Act to include any live lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, or
    cougar species, or any hybrid of such species in the definition of
    ``prohibited wildlife species.'' The Administration does not support
    this change, and cannot support H.R. 2964. This position is consistent
    with our response to similar legislation, H.R. 1329, introduced in the
    109th Congress.
        The Administration's primary concern is the Service's ability to
    meet the extended enforcement mandate created by this provision. As
    noted above, the Service currently enforces the Nation's wildlife laws
    and treaties that protect endangered species, marine mammals, and
    migratory birds. Given the scope of the agency's conservation mission,
    the limited manpower available, and the need to focus on highest
    priority needs, the Service currently concentrates its enforcement
    efforts on preventing illegal activities that jeopardize the
    conservation of wild populations of such protected species. H.R. 2964
    would, instead, emphasize and expand Service enforcement
    responsibilities into an area that has historically been a
    responsibility of state agencies and which we do not consider to be a
    wildlife conservation issue. By including all non-human primates in the
    list of prohibited wildlife species, this bill would also extend the
    Service's enforcement mandate to policing currently legal activities
    involving interstate and foreign commerce of captive non-human
    primates. Many of these species may be lawfully used for research and
    other purposes under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). However, private pet
    ownership is not regulated under the AWA.
        In addition, the mechanism created by this bill appears to provide,
    at least in some instances, coverage that is duplicative of existing
    law. The ESA already prohibits the interstate sale and international
    trade of many listed non-human primate species that have been
    determined to need a high level of protection. While H.R. 2964 would
    extend such prohibitions to unregulated species of primates, it would
    not ban private ownership or intrastate sale of the prohibited species.
    The bill only addresses the interstate and foreign commerce of non-
    human primates, and does not address public safety and the humane
    treatment of these animals. In addition, section 3372(e) of the Lacey
    Act exempts a number of groups and individuals from its prohibitions,
    further limiting the effectiveness of the legislation.
        Prohibiting the interstate transport of legally owned non-human
    primates would also have several negative consequences. Some
    individuals with disabilities currently use trained non-human primates
    as service animals. H.R. 2964 would prohibit these individuals from
    traveling out of state with their service animals. Additionally, should
    individuals who legally own non-human primates as pets move out of
    state, they would be required to leave the animals behind, potentially
    increasing the number of non-human primates being set free, needing to
    be placed in appropriate homes, or ending up in the custody of humane
    shelters and sanctuaries.
        In our view, a better approach would be for Congress to work with
    the Department of Agriculture to identify a suitable way to address any
    public safety and humane treatment concerns associated with possessing
    AWA regulated non-human primates through a more suitable legislative
    vehicle. Private pet ownership concerns may be best addressed through
    state laws that currently address these issues.
        In addition, section 3 of H.R. 2964 would correct a technical
    defect discovered by the Service during development of implementing
    regulations for the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. As presently written,
    the Captive Wildlife Safety Act provisions are a one-step offense
    within a section of the Lacey Act that presumes two-step violations,
    making violations of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act provision very
    difficult to enforce in a court of law. Section 3 of H.R. 2964
    addresses this problem by making it unlawful for a person to sell or
    purchase a live animal of any prohibited wildlife species in interstate
    or foreign commerce and includes provisions for civil and criminal
    penalties for violations of the requirements of this Act. While the
    Administration generally supports this change, for the reasons outlined
    above we do not support the legislation in its current form.
    Conclusion
        The Service is committed to it role in the conservation of
    wildlife, not only in this country but throughout the world. The
    Service has a long history of proactively addressing international
    wildlife species conservation, and works with private citizens, local
    communities, state and Federal agencies, foreign governments, native
    peoples and non-governmental organizations in promoting coordinated
    domestic and international strategies to protect, restore, and enhance
    the world's diverse wildlife and habitats.
        The Service will continue working with other nations, international
    groups, states and Federal enforcement counterparts in this country to
    combat illegal wildlife trade. We welcome the Subcommittee's interest
    in strengthening domestic efforts to accomplish this, and appreciate
    the opportunity to participate in this hearing.
        Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
    happy to respond to any questions that you may have.
                                     ______

        Ms. Bordallo. I thank you very much, Mr. Perez, for your
    testimony.
        And now, Mr. Pacelle, welcome. And you can proceed with
    your testimony.

     STATEMENT OF WAYNE PACELLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, HUMANE SOCIETY
                          OF THE UNITED STATES

        Mr. Pacelle. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo. And thanks to
    you and full committee Chairman Rahall for organizing this
    hearing.
        The Humane Society of the United States supports both
    bills: H.R. 2964 and H.R. 5534.
        I will first make a few observations about the Bear
    Protection Act. Again, we appreciate Congressman Grijalva and
    Campbell of California for crafting this bill that focuses
    narrowly on a specific problem in global bear conservation and
    humane treatment of animals. That is the highly lucrative trade
    in bear viscera, such as gall bladders and bile.
        I think it is very important to just underscore this
    legislation does nothing to limit states from managing their
    resident bear populations, establishing bear hunting seasons,
    or allowing any method of hunting.
        Already we are moving to a national consensus on this issue
    of not promoting poaching by really cracking down on the bear-
    parts trade. Thirty-four states prohibit the trade in gall
    bladders, while only five states allow commercialization, and
    the remainder either have no regulations or allow sale if the
    bear was killed outside the state.
        Addressing the Ranking Member's comments on the last panel,
    Alaska's Administrative Code notes that, ``A person may not
    purchase, sell, barter, advertise, or otherwise offer for sale
    or barter any part of a bear, except an article of handicraft
    made from the fur of a bear.'' So Alaska is one of those 34
    states that prohibits the trade in gall bladders.
        It is not just the issue of poaching American Black Bears.
    Bear viscera and gall bladders look alike from species to
    species, and it is a global economy that we live in. And these
    products are used in traditional Chinese medicine, even though
    there are alternatives, as Congressman Grijalva noted.
        The World Society for the Protection of Animals found that
    illegal bear products were on sale in Boston, Chicago, Los
    Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle. The WSPA
    investigation found that intact gall bladders accounted for 63
    percent of the bear products for sale in the U.S., and that one
    of the gall bladders, allegedly from a wild American Black
    Bear, sold for $2800.
        One out of every six shops visited during the survey sold
    bear products, and 75 percent of them claimed to have products
    from China.
        I think it is also important to put this in a context of
    international conservation. At the tenth meeting of the
    Conference of the Parties to CITES in Zimbabwe, the United
    States coauthored a resolution on conservation of, and trade
    in, bears. The resolution passed unanimously, more than 100
    nations. And it begins by saying that, ``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 not 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 says it ``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.''
        So I would submit to you, Madame Chairwoman, that the Bear
    Protection Act before us today is national legislation that
    meets this international goal.
        I want to address the comments from the Fish and Wildlife
    Service briefly, about this being a burden on the Fish and
    Wildlife Service and its Division of Law Enforcement.
        This is simply another tool that the Fish and Wildlife
    Service and its special agents can use if they choose. There is
    no obligation to take X number of cases, or to divert any
    resources. This is entirely a discretionary law enforcement
    action.
        I also want to say that this whole idea of having a
    complementary law with the states, we have ample precedent in
    this Congress. The Congress has adopted legislation to combat
    the interstate transport of fighting animals. Even at a time
    when a number of states still permitted, still allowed illegal
    animal-fighting activities, the Federal government established
    a bright-line policy to say that that practice is wrong.
        Well, it is wrong to kill bears for their gall bladders and
    their bile. This has nothing to do with hunting; it is an anti-
    poaching measure. And I am frankly astonished that anyone would
    support the position that it is OK to trade in bear gall
    bladders.
        Now my time has nearly elapsed, Madame Chairwoman. I do
    want to just briefly say that the Captive Primate Safety Act is
    one that we support. We associate ourselves with the comments
    from Dr. Goodall, and also the AVMA. Keeping wild animals as
    pets is generally a bad idea. They are not domesticated to live
    in our environments. They come with many behavioral and
    emotional complexities, physical challenges. And to have them
    in our backyards and basements typically results in inhumane
    treatment of these animals.
        The public safety risks do not just relate to the disease
    transmission issues, which are more prevalent because of the
    similarity of primates to humans; but also their physical
    strength, their biting ability. Why have these animals in our
    midst if we can check the success? People can have dogs and
    cats, they make wonderful companions. We don't need chimpanzees
    and macaques in our homes and in our communities that threaten
    people.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pacelle follows:]

      Statement of Wayne Pacelle, President and Chief Executive Officer,
                    The Humane Society of the United States

        Thank you Chairwoman Bordallo and members of the Subcommittee for
    the opportunity to testify in support of both bills being considered
    today--H.R. 5534, the Bear Protection Act of 2008, introduced by
    Representatives Raul Grijalva and John Campbell, and H.R. 2964, the
    Captive Primate Safety Act, introduce by Representatives Eddie Bernice
    Johnson and Mark Kirk. I am Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The
    Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation's largest animal
    protection organization, backed by 10 million Americans--one out of
    every 30.
        This bear protection testimony is also offered on behalf of the
    Bear Working Group of the Species Survival Network and Animals Asia,
    while the full testimony supporting both bills is also offered on
    behalf of Born Free USA.
    Bear Protection Act
    Overview
        For more than a decade, HSUS has investigated the national and
    international trade in bear parts, specifically the gallbladders and
    bile. The demand for bear viscera across America and in other countries
    drives bear poaching and the illegal trade in bear parts, and
    ultimately puts endangered bear species at great risk. Bear parts and
    derivatives are used in traditional medicines and, increasingly, luxury
    cosmetic items.
        The United States has an especially important role to play in bear
    conservation since it is both a bear range state and a nation with
    residents who consume bear parts.
        Congressmen Grijalva and Campbell have crafted a bill that focuses
    narrowly on a specific problem in global bear conservation: the highly
    lucrative trade in bear viscera such as the gallbladders and bile that
    is principally in demand in the enormously large Asian communities at
    home and abroad. The legislation does nothing to limit states from
    managing their resident bear populations, establishing bear hunting
    seasons, or allowing any method of hunting.
        This is not the first time the Congress has considered this
    legislation. The Senate passed very similar legislation on two
    occasions, and in the 107th Congress, the House version of the bill,
    then authored by Representative Elton Gallegly, attracted nearly 200
    cosponsors.
    Legal Loopholes in the United States
        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. We should not allow poachers and smugglers
    to exploit the current inconsistencies in state laws and profit from
    the sale of bear parts.
        Currently, individual states have laws to restrict illegal trade.
    There are 34 states that prohibit the trade in bear gallbladders, while
    only five states allow commercialization and the remainder either have
    no regulations or allow sale if the bear was killed outside the state.
    This legal discrepancy from state to state creates legal ambiguities
    that complicate enforcement, and these are the openings that poachers
    and other bear parts sellers exploit. The Bear Protection Act would
    close loopholes and establish a national policy discouraging bear
    poaching and curbing the bear parts trade.
        A number of states represented by members of this committee have
    strong laws concerning commercialization of bear parts. For example:
          Alaska's Administrative Code notes that a ``person may
    not purchase, sell, barter, advertise, or otherwise offer for sale or
    barter: (1) any part of a bear, except an article of handicraft made
    from the fur of a bear.''
          California's Fish and Game Code includes a provision
    stating that ``it is unlawful to sell or purchase, or possess for sale,
    the meat, skin, hide, teeth, claws, or other parts of any bear in this
    state'' and that ``the possession of more than one bear gall bladder is
    prima facie evidence that the bear gall bladders are possessed for
    sale.''
          In Virginia it is unlawful to ``offer for sale, sell,
    offer to purchase, or purchase, at any time or in any manner, any wild
    bird or wild animal or the carcass or any part thereof, except as
    specifically permitted by law.''
        Despite these strong state laws, poaching of bears and illegal
    commercialization of bear gallbladders persists, though its precise
    scale is unknown because of the secretive nature of the trade and of
    poaching in general.
        In one case that illustrates the value of the Bear Protection Act,
    an individual in Alaska 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 was not clearly 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.''
        As recently as December 2007, a San Diego man was arrested for
    commercializing bear gallbladders. California Department of Fish and
    Game Chief of Enforcement Nancy Foley said in an official statement,
    ``The lucrative profits derived from the illegal trade of bear
    products, most notably bear gall bladders, entice poachers who risk
    felony convictions.''
        Members of the Subcommittee may also be familiar with Operation
    SOUP and Operation VIPER in the Shenandoah Mountains and the large
    number of people involved in a sophisticated multi-state bear
    gallbladder smuggling operation. These operations uncovered the
    movement of bear galls from Virginia to the District of Columbia,
    Maryland, New York, West Virginia, and South Korea. At the time,
    Virginia prohibited trade, while West Virginia allowed the trade (as
    did the District and New York). After these cases made national
    headlines, West Virginia prohibited commercialization of bear
    gallbladders.
        Similar cases of bears being poached for their gallbladders have
    been uncovered throughout the nation, but we believe enforcement
    personnel have been able to interdict just a small portion of the
    trade.
        The bear parts trade in the United States does not just involve the
    poaching of American black bears, a species that is clearly not
    endangered. It may also involve the illegal importation of bear
    gallbladders or bile from highly endangered bears in Asia.
        A 2006 investigation by our colleagues at the World Society for the
    Protection of Animals found that illegal bear products were on sale in
    Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle.
    Some of these states ban the commercialization; some allow it; and
    Illinois has no regulation.
        The WSPA investigation found that intact bear gallbladders
    accounted for 63 percent of the bear products for sale in the U.S. and
    that one of the gallbladders, allegedly from a wild American black
    bear, sold for $2,800. One out of every six shops visited during the
    survey sold bear products, and 75% of them claimed to have products
    from China.
        While the North American black bear population is healthy, and in
    most places stable to increasing, there is also clear evidence that
    bears are poached for their gallbladders and bear parts are being
    illegally smuggled from state to state and sold for profit.
        There is incentive to kill bears illegally in one state because
    individuals can then sell the parts legally in another state--
    circumventing prohibitions on sale that exist in a large majority of
    states and undermining the effectiveness of state laws. State wildlife
    agencies and district attorneys' offices are hindered in investigating
    and prosecuting bear poaching and gallbladder trade cases by this
    patchwork of state laws. Passage of the BPA will create a consistent
    legal framework that will help reduce the number of bears poached
    globally to supply the trade.
    Meeting Our International Responsibilities
        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), some
    brown bear populations, 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.
        At the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES 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 not-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.
    Conclusion
        The passage of this legislation is not a burden upon the Fish and
    Wildlife Service and its Division of Law Enforcement, but another tool
    that special agents can use as they see fit. They have discretion in
    the cases they choose to pursue, and the enactment of that measure does
    not change the equation for them.
        The states have major responsibilities here, and the enactment of
    the Bear Protection Act will serve as a complement to their own
    enforcement efforts. It is a similar in concept to the enactment by
    Congress of a federal law years ago to restrict the interstate trade in
    fighting dogs and birds, even though at the time that the Congress
    passed that original measure, some states still allowed animal
    fighting.
        The world sadly watched for decades as the trade in elephant ivory,
    rhino horn, and tiger bone contributed to the precipitous decline of
    these species throughout their range. Now, bears are also targeted, and
    the threat is tangible, especially given the size of the national and
    global markets for bear parts. Trading in bears parts is not part of
    the hunting industry, and frankly it's not a legitimate industry. The
    Congress should give it no leniency.
    Captive Primate Safety Act
        I'd like now to turn my attention to the Captive Primate Safety
    Act, which seeks to promote animal welfare and protect public health
    and safety by prohibiting interstate commerce in monkeys, chimpanzees,
    and other primates as pets. A companion bill in the Senate (S. 1498)
    was approved by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in
    July 2007.
        Simply put, primates are wild animals and should not be pets. They
    can inflict serious injuries and spread life-threatening disease, and
    the average pet owner cannot provide the care they need in captivity.
        About 20 states prohibit keeping primates as pets, and many of the
    rest require a permit. In addition, importing primates into the United
    States for the pet trade is prohibited because of the health risks.
    Still, an estimated 15,000 primates are in private hands, and they are
    readily available for purchase from exotic animal breeders and dealers
    and even over the Internet. Because many of these animals move in
    interstate commerce, federal legislation is needed to complement state
    laws.
        The Captive Primate Safety Act will amend the Lacey Act by adding
    nonhuman primates to the list of animals who cannot be transported
    across state lines as pets. It does for primates what the Captive
    Wildlife Safety Act--which Congress passed unanimously in late 2003--
    did for lions, tigers, and other big cats. It also includes technical
    corrections to facilitate enforcement of the big cat and primate
    measures.
        The legislation has been narrowly targeted to the pet trade. It has
    no impact on zoos, research, or responsible wildlife sanctuaries. The
    bill addresses the trade and transportation of these animals by
    untrained individuals. With the passage of this legislation, it will no
    longer be legal to attend an exotic animal auction in another state and
    bring home a pet monkey, or order one across state lines over the
    Internet.
    Threat to Animal Welfare
        Nonhuman primates kept in captivity need housing in large
    enclosures, the companionship of other nonhuman primates, and a
    stimulating environment--in short, the kind of environment provided by
    their natural habitat. The average pet owner cannot meet these needs.
        The images in the media of monkeys and chimpanzees, sometimes
    dressed in human clothing and living as members of human families,
    present an entirely unrealistic picture of what keeping a primate
    requires. Primates isolated from their own kind and out of their native
    environments suffer physical and behavioral problems. Squirrel monkeys
    in the wild spend most of their time in treetops, rarely coming to the
    ground, in sharp contrast to life in a human home.
        In the wild, female primates share a very strong bond with their
    young. Newborn tufted capuchins may cling to their mothers for weeks,
    remain in constant contact for months, and live in family groups for
    years. 1 Primates in the pet trade may be taken from their
    mothers when they are just weeks or even days old. In the hands of
    primate breeders, breeding females are subjected to this loss again and
    again.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Gron, Kurt, ``Primate Factsheets: Tufted capuchin (Cebus
    apella) Behavior,'' April 10, 2007. http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/
    factsheets/entry/tufted_capuchin/behav accessed March 4, 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When they fail to meet their owner's expectations, pet primates are
    often subjected isolation and neglect, and owners may turn to brutal
    means to try to control them. Some owners resort to removing the
    animal's canine teeth--a practice the United States Department of
    Agriculture considers a violation of the Animal Welfare Act for animals
    kept in zoos 2--but even that doesn't prevent injury.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ USDA Animal Care, ``Information Sheet on Declawing and Tooth
    Removal,'' August 2006. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/
    downloads/big_cat/declaw_tooth.pdf accessed March 4, 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Primates are long-lived. A chimpanzee who becomes too difficult to
    handle at age eight might live another 50 years. There are few options
    for placing these animals. Primates who are hand-raised by humans are
    deprived of appropriate models for their natural behaviors; it can be
    impossible to rehabilitate them to live with others of their kind.
    Reputable sanctuaries that can provide the requisite care are at or
    near capacity. Pet primates may end up confined to small cages, sold to
    substandard menageries, or back in the cycle of breeding and adding to
    the exotic animal trade.
    Threat to Public Safety
        While infant primates may seem easy to manage, they inevitably grow
    stronger and more aggressive. Chimpanzees become many times stronger
    than humans and extremely difficult to handle. Even small monkeys can
    inflict serious harm by biting and scratching.
        At least 100 people--including 29 children--were injured by captive
    primates over the past ten years; many more incidents likely occurred
    but went unreported. From 1990 to 1992 alone, 28 people reported non-
    occupational macaque bites to the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention. 3 A list of recent incidents is attached as
    Appendix 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Ostrowski, Stephanie R. et al., ``B-virus from Pet Macaque
    Monkeys: An Emerging Threat in the United States?'' Emerging Infectious
    Diseases, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - March 1998. http://www.cdc.gov/
    ncidod/eid/vol4no1/ostrowsk.htm accessed March 4, 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Children are particularly vulnerable to attack because primates
    view them as lower in social hierarchy, but adults are also at risk.
    Primates can move with great speed and agility--patas monkeys are said
    to reach speeds of 30 miles an hour. A 20-pound monkey can quickly
    overwhelm a 200-pound man, according to a 2006 Health Advisory issued
    by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. 4
    The advisory is attached as Appendix 2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ ``Health Advisory: Dangers Associated With Keeping Primates as
    Pets,'' Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, October 6,
    2006. www.dhss.mo.gov/BT_Response/HAdPrimates10-6-06.pdf accessed March
    4, 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chimpanzees used in television and film are routinely retired from
    show business around eight years of age. Once they are past
    adolescence, even experienced trainers are unable to control them. In
    2005, a California man was severely mauled by two chimpanzees formerly
    used in entertainment who escaped their enclosure at an exotic animal
    facility. After months in a medically induced coma and a dozen
    surgeries, he still faced a long road to recovery.
        Primates are renowned escape artists. In this case, the caretaker
    left two of the three doors holding the animals in their enclosure
    open, but claimed she locked the third barrier--a wire mesh trapdoor
    held in place by a 4-inch pin about an arm's length from the chimps--
    which the chimpanzees were able to open.
        In just the past few weeks, in Washington state a monkey reportedly
    figured out how to open the door to his new home when the owners
    weren't there. The monkey bit three people before being recaptured. In
    Arizona, a three-year-old boy was bitten on his wrist, possibly down to
    the bone, by a lemur his family had gotten only two weeks before.
    Threat to Public Health
        Primates can harbor diseases and parasites that can be transmitted
    to humans. These include viral diseases (such as herpes B, hepatitis,
    and monkeypox), bacterial diseases (such as tuberculosis, salmonella,
    and shigella), fungal diseases (such as ringworm), intestinal
    protozoans and worms, and external parasites. 5
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Renquist, David M. and Robert A. Whitney, Jr., ``Zoonoses
    Acquired From Pet Primates,'' Veterinary Clinics of North America:
    Small Animal Practice 17 (1) 219-240, 1987. http://
    pin.primate.wisc.edu/aboutp/pets/zoonoses.html accessed March 4, 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians
    (NASPHV) recommends prohibiting primates in exhibit settings where
    there is a reasonable possibility of contact with the animals in its
    Compendium of Measures to Prevent Disease Associated with Animals in
    Public Settings, 2007. 6 Public contact is especially likely
    when primates are kept as pets and transported into public settings.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ ``Compendium of Measures to Prevent Disease Associated with
    Animals in Public Settings, 2007,'' National Association of State
    Public Health Veterinarians, Inc., published in the CDC's Morbidity and
    Mortality Weekly Report, July 4, 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/
    mmwrhtml/rr5605a1.htm accessed March 4, 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Due to the many health risks nonhuman primates pose, both known and
    unknown, the importation of primates into the United States for the pet
    trade has been prohibited since 1975. Primates may be imported for
    research purposes and must undergo a quarantine period in order to
    detect evidence of disease.
        Despite these laws, nonhuman primates may be smuggled into the
    country illegally. In August 2007, a man flew from Peru to Florida,
    where he waited several hours for a connecting flight to New York. It
    wasn't until he was aboard the flight to New York that passengers
    noticed the man had a live marmoset under his hat. The legal trade
    provides cover the illegal movement of these animals.
        The staffs of research facilities and accredited zoos are trained
    to avoid contact with nonhuman primates. Pet owners take these animals
    to the park and the grocery store. Two children were bitten by a pet
    macaque at a Missouri park in September 2007, and a clerk at a North
    Carolina convenience store was bitten by a pet monkey brought in by a
    customer in December 2007. In both cases, the owners ran off with the
    animals before they could be tested for disease.
            ``Nonhuman primates, by virtue of their genetic, physiologic,
            and sometimes social similarities to humans, are particularly
            likely sources of infectious agents that pose a threat to
            humans,'' according to research published by the Centers for
            Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 7
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Jones-Engel, Lisa et al., ``Primate-to-human retroviral
    transmission in Asia'' Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 11, No. 7,
    July 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/Eid/vol11no07/04-0957.htm accessed
    March 4, 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The following zoonotic disease threats can originate in primates.
    Herpes B Virus
        Herpes B virus is present in most adult macaques, though they may
    not display any symptoms. Transmission to humans has been rare, but
    humans who develop clinical signs of Herpes B virus have a very high
    mortality rate without immediate treatment. CDC research concludes:
    ``The extremely high prevalence of B-virus along with their behavioral
    characteristics make the macaque species unsuitable as pets.''
    8 Herpes B virus also has been found in capuchins,
    9 patas monkeys, 10 and a colobus monkey
    11 who were housed near macaques.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Ostrowski, Stephanie R. et al., ``B-virus from Pet Macaque
    Monkeys: An Emerging Threat in the United States?'' Emerging Infectious
    Diseases, Vol. 4, No. 1, January - March 1998. http://www.cdc.gov/
    ncidod/eid/vol4no1/ostrowsk.htm accessed March 4, 2008.
        \9\ Coulibaly, C. et al., ``A natural asymptomatic herpes B virus
    infection in a colony of laboratory brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus
    apella),'' Laboratory Animals, Vol. 38, No. 4, October 2004, 432-
    438(7). http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/rsm/lab/2004/00000038/
    00000004/art00011 accessed March 4, 2008.
        \10\ Wilson, Ronald B. et al., ``Fatal Herpesvirus simiae (B virus)
    infection in a patas monkey (Erythrocebus patas),'' J Vet Diagn Invest
    2:242-244 (1990) http://jvdi.org/cgi/reprint/2/3/242.pdf accessed March
    4, 2008.
        \11\ Loomis, M.R. et al., ``Fatal herpesvirus infection in patas
    monkeys and a black and white colobus monkey'' (abstract), J Am Vet Med
    Assoc., 1981 Dec 1;179(11):1236-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/
    entrez?db=pubmed&uid=6276349&cmd'showdetailview accessed March 4, 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The risk from Herpes B is evident from the experience in biomedical
    research. A worker at Yerkes National Primate Research Center in
    Georgia died from a Herpes B infection after body fluid from a macaque
    splashed into her eye in 1997. In December 2005, a five-year-old girl
    in the Philippines reportedly was bitten by a neighbor's pet macaque,
    contracted an infection, and died within days.
        Even if primates test negative for disease, professional animal
    facilities handle them as though they are a disease threat. Macaques at
    the Maryland Zoo in Baltimore tested negative for Herpes B year after
    year, until one tested positive.
        Pet buyers and public health officials may be unaware of the
    danger. In 2006, an Ohio man purchased a pet macaque from a woman in
    Idaho who had advertised the monkey for sale on the Internet. On the
    first day, the man was bitten while trying to feed the monkey. It was
    only after the bite that he and local health authorities learned about
    the risk of Herpes B.
    Simian Foamy Virus
        Simian foamy virus is a retrovirus that infects a range of nonhuman
    primates. According to Canadian health authorities, about 70 to 90
    percent of nonhuman primates born in captivity have SFV. 12
    In 2006, in light of the potential risk of SFV and as yet unidentified
    simian viruses, Canada prohibited blood donations by people who ever
    took care of or handled monkeys or their body fluids on a regular basis
    in their jobs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Health Canada, ``Fact Sheet--Simian Foamy Virus,'' July 26,
    2006. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/brgtherap/activit/fs-fi/
    fact_simian_foamy_virus_spumeux_simien_feuillet_e.html accessed March
    4, 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A case has been documented in Asia of SFV transmission from free-
    roaming macaques to a person. To date SFV has not resulted in illness
    in humans, but researchers conclude that further study is needed into
    SFV transmission in other contexts, including pet ownership. ``The
    demonstration of SFV transmission in the context of a monkey temple in
    Bali points to a broad public health concern: other enzootic primate
    infectious agents may cross the species barrier and cause significant
    morbidity and mortality in human populations,'' they say. 13
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Jones-Engel, Lisa et al., ``Primate-to-human retroviral
    transmission in Asia'' Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 11, No. 7,
    July 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/Eid/vol11no07/04-0957.htm accessed
    March 4, 2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tuberculosis
        Human and nonhuman primates share susceptibility to wide array of
    bacterial agents including bacteria that causes tuberculosis. Monkeys
    imported for research, particularly from countries with a high
    incidence of the disease, have been found to be carrying tuberculosis.
    14 Tuberculosis also can be transmitted from humans to
    nonhuman primates, and it can be fatal to them.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ ``Tuberculosis in Imported Nonhuman Primates--United States,
    June 1990-May 1993'' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 42(29);572-576, July 30, 1993.
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00021299.htm accessed March 4,
    2008.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wild Animals Belong in the Wild
        Because of the serious risk of disease transmission combined with
    the likelihood of escapes and attacks, keeping primates as pets
    threatens public health and safety. It also threatens the welfare of
    the animals. These social, intelligent animals should not be separated
    from others of their kind, forced to live in unsuitable environments,
    and confined in small cages to sequester these dangerous animals from
    people.
        We understand people's fascination with primates because they seem
    so much like us. But unlike cats and dogs--domesticated over thousands
    of years and dependent upon us for shelter and care--primates are wild
    animals. No amount of training or human affection will change their
    basic instincts. Because of their genetic similarity to us, they are
    ideal hosts for passing zoonotic diseases to people. For all of these
    reasons, they belong in the wild, not in our backyards and basements.
        This legislation will not prohibit keeping primates as pets, but by
    prohibiting interstate movement it will discourage the trade and help
    protect the animals and the community. This measure, like the Bear
    Protection Act, is a complement to state laws on the topic and sets a
    bright-line national policy that keeping primates as pets is
    unacceptable. We urge support for both measures.
    Appendix 1

                  Recent Primate Incidents Demonstrate Risks
                  To Public Health and Safety, Animal Welfare

        February 2008 (Arizona): A 3-year-old was bitten by a lemur his
    family got two weeks before.
        February 2008 (Washington): A pet monkey escaped from a home and
    bit three people before being recaptured.
        December 2007 (North Carolina): A woman working at a convenience
    store was bitten by a pet monkey brought in by a customer; the customer
    then ran out of the store with the monkey.
        September 2007 (Missouri): Two children were bitten by a pet
    macaque monkey at a park. The woman who owned the monkey ran off with
    the animal. Macaques often carry Herpes B virus, and research published
    by the CDC concludes the health risk makes them unsuitable as pets.
        August 2007 (Wisconsin): A woman was bitten by a monkey a man had
    on a leash; the monkey later escaped and was on the loose for several
    hours before being recaptured and quarantined.
        June 2007 (Vermont): State game wardens seized two monkeys and
    charged a man with having them illegally. Officials said the animals
    were moved from place to place and kept in small cages.
        April 2007 (Mississippi): A federal agent approached a home and was
    attacked by a macaque.
        February 2007 (Michigan): A 3-year-old was scratched by a macaque
    being housed at a pet shop.
        January 2007 (Louisiana): An 8-year-old boy got rabies shots after
    being bitten by a pet lemur.
        October 2006 (Ohio): A man was bitten by a pet macaque monkey he
    received that day from an Idaho woman who had advertised the animal for
    sale on the Internet.
        August 2006 (Tennessee): A woman was buckling her 3-year-old
    granddaughter into a car seat when a neighbor's monkey jumped into the
    car and attacked the girl, who needed stitches.
        August 2006: (Illinois): A pet monkey escaped from a cage and
    severely bit a teenager.
        March 2006 (Louisiana): A pet bonnet macaque escaped from a cage
    and attacked a 2-year-old boy across the street. The boy received
    rabies prevention treatments.
        March 2006 (Texas): A pet monkey bit a person and was euthanized to
    test for disease.
        November 2005 (Arizona): A pet monkey escaped from a cage and tore
    though a neighbor's birthday party, biting two children.
        August 2005 (Tennessee): A pet monkey escaped or was stolen; anyone
    spotting the monkey was warned not to make eye contact because the
    owner said the animal would bite.
        July 2005 (Ohio): A pet macaque escaped from an enclosure, jumped
    into a truck, bit a man, and fled.
        May 2005 (West Virginia): A 13-year-old girl was bitten by a pet
    monkey a woman had on a leash at a shopping center.
        March 2005 (California): A man was brutally mauled by two
    chimpanzees who escaped their enclosure at an exotic animal facility.
    Appendix 2
        ``Health Advisory: Dangers Associated With Keeping Primates as
    Pets,'' Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, October 6,
    2006

       Response to questions submitted for the record by Wayne Pacelle,
                                 Humane Society

    Questions from Chairwoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU)
    1.  Mr. Perez makes a good point: how is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
            Service supposed to take on the additional responsibility of
            enforcing the ban that this bill would put in place? The
            Service is already underfunded.
    Answer:
        We agree that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has
    enormous law enforcement responsibilities, but we disagree with the
    agency in its view that the enactment of these measures would create
    undue burdens. Instead, we believe that strong laws to protect bears
    and primates are valuable and needed tools to combat poaching and the
    mistreatment of primates.
        The Humane Society of the United States and many of our colleagues
    working in the animal protection and wildlife conservation field have
    strongly advocates for enhanced funding of the Division of Law
    Enforcement at the USFWS. We will continue to do so. Poachers are a
    threat to all wildlife, and nabbing them on bear poaching charges helps
    all wildlife and fulfills the core mission of the USFWS.
        Enforcement actions under the Bear Protection Act and the Captive
    Primate Safety Act are discretionary. They are tools that law
    enforcement can use to protect wildlife from abuse and exploitation.
        The Bear Protection Act would make it easier for state wildlife law
    enforcement departments to apprehend bear poachers and bear parts
    smugglers and prosecute them effectively. This is true because there
    would no longer be a significant burden or proof to show the site of
    the bear poaching or the origin of the galls--commercialization would
    be prohibited nationally. The Bear Protection Act would not impose on
    the Service whatsoever; it will enhance operations and capacity at the
    state and federal level.
        Further, as we heard in the testimony before your Subcommittee from
    Skip Wissinger, in Operation SOUP there was terrific and detailed
    cooperation between the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
    Fisheries and the National Park Service. The primary involvement of
    USFWS only came in the form of bear gall forensic analysis at the
    national forensics laboratory in Ashland, Oregon.
        The last CBO cost estimate for the Bear Protection Act concluded
    the following: ``CBO expects that implementing [the Bear Protection
    Act] S. 1109 would not increase the enforcement responsibilities of
    federal agencies because they would carry out the legislation in
    conjunction with a number of other very similar laws, such as the ESA.
    No additional enforcement efforts would be necessary except for the
    initial promulgation of regulations by the USFWS in consultation with
    other agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services.''
                                     ______

        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Pacelle, for your
    careful consideration of these two bills.
        And finally, I would like to invite Mr. Ross to present his
    testimony.

    STATEMENT OF STEVE ROSS, SUPERVISOR OF BEHAVIORAL AND COGNITIVE
       RESEARCH AND CHAIR, AZA CHIMPANZEE SPECIES SURVIVAL PLAN,
                  LINCOLN PARK ZOO, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

        Mr. Ross. Thank you very much, Madame Chair, for the
    opportunity to testify before you and the Subcommittee
    regarding H.R. 2964, on behalf of the Association of Zoos and
    Aquariums, or AZA.
        AZA represents 216 professionally managed and accredited
    institutions which draw over 156 million visitors annually. AZA
    institutions are the leaders in animal care and welfare,
    conservation science, and conservation education, and currently
    AZA member institutions are involved in 112 different species
    survival plan programs throughout the world, including 159
    species including primates, such as baboons, chimpanzees,
    macaques, mangabeys, orangutans, and tamarins.
        It is in this context that AZA expresses its strong support
    for H.R. 2964. The bill is a logical extension of the Captive
    Wildlife Safety Act, which of course was passed into law in
    2003. Combined, these measures begin to address the public
    safety threats posed by the private ownership of certain wild
    and dangerous animals as pets, as well as the important animal
    welfare issues associated with the personal ownership of these
    animals.
        This bill represents a much-needed step toward stemming the
    tide of the growing exotic animal pet trade, and this
    legislation takes aim at the increase in the number of
    unregulated and untrained individuals who are maintaining
    nonhuman primates as personal pets.
        As we have heard from Dr. Goodall, primates are among the
    most intelligent species on earth. They have large brains,
    complex social systems, and their behavioral needs are so
    specialized that in 1985, an amendment to the Animal Welfare
    Act was passed that specifically called for specialized
    environmental enhancement for nonhuman primates.
        But the ability of private pet owners to meet these
    behavioral and psychological needs is suspect, and too often
    pet primates are subjected to sub-optimal housing,
    inappropriate social environments, and as a result, compromised
    quality of life.
        Now, earlier this year I had the opportunity to visit with
    a couple who had two young chimpanzees as pets. They were
    actually young adults. This couple had purchased the
    chimpanzees at a young age from private dealers out of state,
    and transported back across state lines to live with them at
    their private residence.
        When the chimpanzees were much younger, they were brought
    to birthday parties and other events, as well as photographed
    for commercial purposes. But today they are older, more
    dangerous, and now live in two separate small cages indoors.
    They are unable to go outside. They cannot fully interact with
    each other or others of their species. And despite the couple's
    obvious affection for them, they are unable to receive even
    minimally acceptable housing and care.
        Finding a new home for them is next to impossible; and as
    such, these chimpanzees might live another 30 or 40 years in
    the same cramped conditions.
        In addition to these welfare considerations, private
    ownership of nonhuman primates has significant public health
    consequences, as we have heard. And these threaten the well-
    being and safety of not only the pet owners themselves, but of
    their friends and their family, and neighbors and community.
        Many of these pet owners, pet primates are kept without
    proper veterinary care, as neighborhood vet clinics don't have
    the training or expertise to diagnose or treat these rare and
    exotic species. Given that these animals have the ability to
    contract, carry, and transmit many diseases that can infect
    humans, this presents a serious zoonotic threat to communities
    across the country.
        Many of the nonhuman species that would be covered by this
    legislation are powerful, intelligent, and dangerous by almost
    any measure. The great apes in particular, including
    chimpanzees and orangutans, which are used as pets in this
    country, require specialized care and housing far beyond what
    most private citizens can provide, and the consequences of
    their escape into the local community could have devastating
    results.
        As we have heard, the bite of any but the smallest primate
    species would result in serious wounding to humans, and the
    more powerful primates are certainly capable of inflicting
    lethal damage.
        Based on our member institutions' unparalleled experience
    and expertise in dealing with these types of animals, the AZA
    firmly believes that nonhuman primates cannot be properly
    maintained by individuals without the necessary resources or
    knowledge to care for them. Not only is the well-being of these
    highly intelligent and endangered animals being neglected by
    their presence as pets in sub-optimal housing, but it presents
    significant health and safety risks to neighbors, children, and
    domestic pets in the community.
        These powerful and unpredictable animals should only be
    maintained by qualified experts from accredited zoological
    institutions or other professionally operated and regulated
    facilities.
        Madame Chair, this bill represents a timely response to an
    ever-increasing human health and animal welfare concern. The
    ability to restrict the interstate transport of pet primates
    would have a significant impact on the private pet trade, and
    curtails an industry that has long ignored the serious risk
    that is subjected to local communities across the country. It
    brings much-needed attention to an issue that has public
    health, safety, and animal welfare consequences.
        AZA, our conservation management programs, and our 216
    accredited member institutions stand ready to assist you in
    this challenge, and the overarching issues surrounding the
    illegal and unregulated trade in wildlife and wildlife parts.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ross follows:]

        Statement of Steve Ross, Supervisor, Behavioral and Cognitive
      Research, Lester E Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of
     Apes, Lincoln Park Zoo, and Chair, Chimpanzee Species Survival Plan,
                       Association of Zoos and Aquariums

        Thank you Madam Chair, for the opportunity to testify before you
    and the Subcommittee regarding H.R. 2964, the Captive Primate Safety
    Act. Before I begin, I would like to request that my written testimony
    on behalf of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) be included in
    the hearing record.
        My name is Steve Ross. I am the Supervisor of Behavioral and
    Cognitive Research at the Lester E. Fisher Center for the Study and
    Conservation of Apes at Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago and the Chair of
    the AZA Chimpanzee Species Survival Plan (SSP). I have worked with
    nonhuman primates for 14 years and the primary focus of my research has
    been on improving the care and management of captive primates--
    specifically that of chimpanzees.
        AZA represents 216 professionally-managed and accredited
    institutions which draw over 156 million visitors annually. AZA
    institutions are the leaders in animal care and welfare, conservation
    science and conservation education. One of the cornerstones of AZA is
    its Species Survival Plan (SSP) program--a long-term plan involving
    genetically-diverse breeding, habitat preservation, public education,
    field conservation and supportive research to ensure survival for many
    threatened and endangered species. Currently, AZA member institutions
    are involved in 112 different SSP programs throughout the world
    covering 159 species, including primate species such as baboons,
    bonobos, chimpanzees, gibbons, gorillas, macaques, mangabeys,
    marmosets, orangutans and tamarins.
        It is in this context that AZA expresses its strong support for
    H.R. 2964. The bill is a logical extension of the Captive Wildlife
    Safety Act which was passed into law in 2003. Combined, these measures
    begin to address the public safety threats posed by the private
    ownership of certain wild and dangerous animals as pets, as well as the
    important animal welfare issues associated with the personal ownership
    of these animals. This bill represents a much-needed step towards
    stemming the tide of the growing exotic animal pet trade. This
    legislation takes aim at the increase in the number of unregulated and
    untrained individuals who are maintaining non-human primates as
    personal pets.
        Specifically, H.R. 2964 would amend the Lacey Act to prohibit the
    interstate and foreign commerce of dangerous exotic animals defined as
    non-human primates for use as pets. This legislation would not ban the
    private ownership of these species and would specifically exempt zoos,
    circuses, sanctuaries, incorporated humane societies and others that
    are currently regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
    under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act.
        Currently, very few states have enacted outright bans on the
    private ownership of these dangerous exotic animals with only a handful
    of other states enacting partial bans. For instance, in a recent
    thorough review of state legislation I conducted with Sarah Baekler of
    the Chimpanzee Collaboratory in preparation for an article to be
    published in Science this week, we found that only 6 states have full
    and complete bans on the private ownership of chimpanzees--arguably the
    most dangerous of the nonhuman primates that would be affected by H.R.
    2964. To further complicate matters, full enforcement of these bans has
    been difficult and inconsistent given the scope of the problem. The
    result is a patchwork of laws, regulatory loopholes and a thriving
    commercial trade in dangerous exotic animals. There are hundreds of web
    sites and numerous catalogues that market exotic animals, including
    dangerous and powerful non-human primates, as pets. The inconsistent
    enforcement of current regulations and increasing demand has fostered a
    dangerous underground industry in exotic pets.
        Primates are among the most intelligent species on earth. They have
    large brains, complex social systems and their behavioral needs are so
    specialized that in 1985, an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act was
    passed that specifically called for specialized environmental
    enhancement for nonhuman primates. But the ability of private pet
    owners to meet these behavioral and psychological needs is suspect and
    too often pet primates are subjected to suboptimal housing,
    inappropriate social environments and as a result, compromised quality
    of life.
        Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit with a couple who
    have two young adult chimpanzees as pets. The couple had purchased the
    chimpanzees at a young age from private dealers out of state and
    transported them back to live with them at their private residence in
    New York State. When the chimpanzees were much younger, they were
    brought to birthday parties and other events, as well as photographed
    for commercial purposes. But today they are older, more dangerous and
    live in two separate, small cages indoors. They are unable to go
    outside. They cannot fully interact with each other or others of their
    species. And despite the couples' obvious affection for them, they are
    unable to receive even minimally acceptable housing and care. Finding a
    new home for them is next to impossible and as such, these chimpanzees
    may live another 30 years in these same cramped conditions.
        In addition to these welfare considerations, private ownership of
    nonhuman primates has significant public health consequences that
    threaten the well-being and safety of not only the pet owners
    themselves but of their friends, family, neighbors and community. Many
    of these pet primates are kept without proper veterinary care as
    neighborhood vet clinics often don't have the training or expertise to
    diagnose or treat rare and exotic species such as nonhuman primates.
    Given that these animals have the ability to contract, carry and
    transmit many diseases that can infect humans (such as herpes B, monkey
    pox and tuberculosis), this presents a serious zoonotic threat to
    communities across the country. One recent study found that 67% of non-
    occupational macaque bite incidents from 1993-97 were B-virus positive
    and that children were more than three times as likely to be the
    victims of such bites.
        Finally, it is important to point out the inherent dangers to which
    the pet primate community is subjecting their local communities across
    the country. Many of the nonhuman species that would be covered by this
    legislation are powerful, intelligent and dangerous by almost any
    measure. The great apes in particular, including chimpanzees and
    orangutans, require specialized care and housing far beyond what most
    private citizens can provide and the consequences of their escape into
    the local community could have devastating results. The bite of any but
    the smallest primate species would result in serious wounding to humans
    and more powerful primate species are certainly capable of inflicting
    lethal damage. Just last week, a pet macaque monkey escaped from it's
    owner in Spokane, Washington and bit three people, including a young
    female exchange student. This event was thankfully not serious but
    given that macaques are natural carriers of the potentially fatal
    Herpes B virus, it is clear that the potential consequences of
    inadequate housing by an unregulated and inexperienced population are
    grave.
        Collectively, AZA institutions care for over 800,000 wild animals
    on a daily basis--many of these animals are extremely dangerous. Based
    on our member institutions' unparalleled experience and expertise in
    dealing with these animals, the AZA firmly believes that non-human
    primates cannot be properly maintained by individuals without the
    necessary resources or knowledge to care for them. Non-human primates
    are highly complex and intelligent animals with very specific physical,
    behavioral, husbandry, health and nutritional needs. Very rarely would
    these all of these needs be able to be met by someone who possesses
    these animals for use as a pet. Not only is the well-being of these
    highly intelligent and endangered animals being neglected but their
    presence as pets in suboptimal housing presents a significant health
    and safety risk to neighbors, children, and domestic pets in the
    community. These powerful, unpredictable animals should only be
    maintained by qualified experts from accredited zoological institutions
    or other professionally-operated, regulated facilities. Curatorial
    staffs in these facilities have the requisite knowledge and experience
    to meet the behavioral and physical needs of these animals and
    understand the inherent risks associated with caring for them. In
    addition, these facilities have the resources to provide the necessary
    housing, nutrition, veterinary care and enrichment to accommodate the
    animals' special needs and to maintain them in a safe and humane
    environment.
        There is also emerging consensus on the part of animal welfare,
    public safety and professional organizations and the Federal government
    concerning the need for concerted action to address the issue of
    nonhuman primates that are kept as pets. For example, the American
    Association of Zoological Veterinarians which represents over 1000
    veterinarians caring for zoo animals in the United States points out
    that keeping and trading exotic and captive wild animals can cause
    serious problems including: (1) zoonotic disease transmission; (2)
    human injury and death; (3) compromised animal welfare due to
    inadequate knowledge and experience to meet the complex social,
    emotional, behavioral and physical needs of these animals; (4) medical
    problems due to inadequate veterinary care, poor nutrition, poor
    husbandry or due to various surgical procedures, such as dental
    extractions, performed for the sole purpose of trying to turn a wild
    animal into a pet; (5) abandonment, suffering or death due to
    insufficient financial resources to provide a safe and humane
    environment; (6) potential for escape due to improper transport,
    insecure containment or lack of proper equipment; and (7) damage to
    wild populations of rare species due to over-collection, introduction
    of non-native species or exotic diseases.
        Madam Chair, this bill represents a timely response to an ever-
    increasing human health and animal welfare concern. The ability to
    restrict the interstate transport of pet primates would have a
    significant impact on the private pet trade and curtails an industry
    that has ignored the serious risks that it has subjected to local
    communities across the country. It brings much-needed attention to an
    issue with public health, safety and animal welfare consequences. AZA,
    our conservation management programs, and our 216 accredited member
    institutions stand ready to assist you in this challenge and the
    overarching issues surrounding the illegal and unregulated trade in
    wildlife and wildlife parts.
        Thank you again, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to comment on
    this important public safety and animal welfare issue. I would be happy
    to answer any questions that you may have.
                                     ______

         Response to questions submitted for the record by Steve Ross,
                       Association of Zoos and Aquariums

    Questions from Chairwoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU)
    1.  Mr. Ross, thank you for your testimony and your commitment to
            improving the care and management of captive primates. You
            mentioned in your testimony the specific needs of nonhuman
            primates.
      Why is it difficult to meet these needs in the home
            environment?
        Zoos and other regulated facilities have the staff, resources and
    expertise to care and house animals, such as primates, that require
    complex physical and social environments. Most private citizens lack
    the space, physical elements, financial means or expertise to build an
    appropriate physical environment for primates which would consist of
    species-appropriate furnishings, enrichment and substrates. Likewise,
    almost all primates are very social, and as such they require species-
    typical groupings to optimize their welfare condition. Although most
    primate pet owners may feel they provide adequate care and attention,
    there is no substitute for the companionship of a conspecific (a member
    of the same species) with shared behavioral and communication
    tendencies.
      Do most nonhuman primate pets become more aggressive with age
            and improper care?
        My expertise is focused on chimpanzees and as such my answer will
    focus on that species as a case study for other primates. When
    chimpanzees reach adolescence, there is an increase in specific
    hormonal levels and an associated change in behavior. Male chimpanzees
    begin testing their social hierarchy (``pecking order''), become more
    active and interested in the opposite sex, and as a result, tend to be
    involved in physical altercations. Given that chimpanzees are a highly
    social species with marked multimale hierarchy, it is common to see
    rates of aggression increase as they move out of infanthood.
        I am not aware of any data to definitively correlate improper care
    and rates of aggression. However, my personal experience is that
    chimpanzees that are housed in substandard conditions, may be prone to
    many behavioral indicators of anxiety and frustration including
    increased aggressive behavior.
      Why are a substantial portion of injuries inflicted by
            nonhuman primates toward children?
        I do not have any data to substantiate the cause of that particular
    finding. My personal opinion is that children present are at greater
    risk because they are more curious, less aware of the risks and perhaps
    less physically able to avoid those risks (in this cases, those risks
    are in the form of a highly intelligent, fast-moving and unpredictable
    wild animal).
      What sort of training is given to qualified experts from
            accredited zoological institutions to care for nonhuman
            primates?
        Today, the vast majority of staff at accredited zoological
    institutions--from the animal caretakers to curators to research
    staff--have at least a bachelor's degree in an associated field of
    study (zoology, biology, etc.). Furthermore, most zoos have detailed
    internal training programs on husbandry and behavior and require years
    of experience before hiring caretakers. Finally, many AZA programs,
    such as the Chimpanzee Species Survival Plan (the group that manages
    the population of chimpanzees in accredited North American zoos), offer
    biennial husbandry workshops to ensure keepers have access to the
    latest care and husbandry information.
    2.  You mentioned that proper veterinary care for nonhuman primates may
            be difficult to receive from a neighborhood clinic.
      How specialized does a veterinarian need to be to care for a
            nonhuman primate?
        The vast majority of veterinarians do not deal with nonhuman
    primates and as such, do not have the experience with those species.
    Beyond this, it is best for me to defer to a veterinary expert.
      Is the average veterinarian equipped to detect diseases that
            can infect humans?
        This is outside my expertise.
    3.  Can you explain the reasons behind dental extractions in nonhuman
            primates and speak to the effectiveness of such practice?
        Dental extractions are not a contemporary management technique in
    accredited zoos. I know of no data that substantiates it as an
    effective form of aggression control. Furthermore, extraction of teeth
    may render a primate defenseless if/when it must be moved in with
    conspecifics, as often is the case with pet primates.
    4.  What are the differences in the way a primate would live at an AZA
            accredited zoo and in a private home as a pet? How do these
            differences affect the welfare of the animal?
        Again, I will focus on chimpanzees given my expertise with that
    species in particular. Although there is variation between zoos, the
    fact that all AZA zoos undergo the same rigorous and standardized
    accreditation process allows us to maintain high standards of care and
    housing.
          Currently there are no solitary chimpanzees in AZA zoos
    as the SSP feels social housing is of the utmost importance. The median
    group size (as of January 2008) is 6. This is in contrast to the
    typical social condition of pet chimpanzees: usually one, or at best
    two, individuals.
          AZA zoos have on-staff veterinarians and often highly
    trained nutritionists and behaviorists as their disposal to aid in the
    care of their chimpanzees. Pet chimpanzees must receive their
    specialized health care at local veterinary offices (sometimes many
    miles away), often from vets without the specialized training or
    facilities to treat those species.
          The investment to house and care for chimpanzees at AZA
    zoos is considerably higher than the average primate pet owner. Large,
    multi-million dollar, indoor-outdoor exhibits are the norm now--
    providing an enriching physical environment. Private pet owners may
    have good intentions but their ability to provide equally stimulating
    physical environments is questionable.
          It is important to also consider the cooperative
    management paradigm utilized by the community of AZA accredited zoos.
    Through the coordination of Species Survival Plans (SSPs), animals
    which may be better suited at a different facility or social group, can
    be transferred to a more suitable location. Transfers are made with the
    best interests of the population and individual animal welfare in mind.
    This network of accredited institution also provided an invaluable
    resource in terms of expertise and experience when difficult veterinary
    or husbandry issues arise. In the case of private ownership, such
    options are simply not available and as a result, pet primates are
    often abandoned or left to languish in inappropriate conditions because
    of a lack of alternatives.
    5.  Do zoo personnel handle primates? What precautions do they take to
            prevent the spread of disease? Could you please differentiate
            this practice from the way primates are treated as pets?
        The forms of contact and handling differ greatly between primate
    species. However, AZA zoos have strict protocols in place to minimize
    the risk of disease transmission. Further details and examples of such
    protocols should be sought from the veterinary community within AZA.
    6.  I understand monkeys and chimpanzees have on occasion escaped from
            zoos. What do zoos do to prevent escapes, and how would this
            compare to a primate kept as a pet?
        Primates are wild animals and are highly unpredictable. As such,
    there have been incidents in which they have escaped from zoo
    facilities. Although these incidents are relatively rare and highly
    publicized, it does underscore the fact that these animals are
    intelligent enough to find ways out of even the most secure locations.
    Given that pet primates are housed usually in home-made enclosures
    built by personnel without the proper expertise or experience, the risk
    of escape from a private residence is considerably higher. Furthermore,
    most zoos have thorough policies in place in the event of an escape, to
    best ensure a safe recovery. An escape from a private residence into a
    local community is a far greater danger.  7.  Are small monkeys
    safe? Or can they also cause injuries and spread disease?
        My expertise is in the behavior of chimpanzees and as such I will
    defer these questions relating to monkeys and small primates to my
    colleagues in AZA. That said, there is clear information in the
    scientific literature of the potential for monkeys (such as macaques)
    to carry diseases (such as Herpes B simplex) which can be fatal in
    humans. A recent paper stated that ``Seroprevalence of neutralizing
    antibodies to B-virus in captive adult macaque populations is 73%-
    100%'' (Emerging Infectious Diseases, 4:117-121).
                                     ______

        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Ross. We appreciate
    your views on these pieces of legislation.
        And the Chair would now like to recognize the gentleman
    from Alaska--he has another appointment--Mr. Young for any
    questions that he may have.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Mr. Pacelle, I wrote
    you and four other animal groups a letter in November of 2006
    regarding the Santa Rosa Island. In that letter I urged you to
    join conservation groups, such as the Congressional Sports
    Foundation Safari Club, et cetera, in imposing legislation that
    would compel the slaughter of elk and deer that have made Santa
    Rosa Island their home for the past 70 years.
        I not only have not received a response to my letter, but
    do not believe that the Humane Society of the United States has
    ever opposed such legislation, or supports a responsible number
    of elk or deer remain in the Santa Rosa Island.
        The question is, do you support this senseless slaughter?
    Or should elk and deer on Santa Rosa Island have visitors to
    enjoy beyond 2011? And why doesn't the Humane Society get on
    the record in opposition to this slaughter?
        Mr. Pacelle. Thank you, Congressman Young. And I am sorry
    that you didn't receive a reply from us.
        I would say that that issue posed a dilemma for us. We
    recognize that some of the environmental organizations wanted
    to eliminate this species from this island ecosystem because of
    the vegetative impacts.
        We often disagree with some of the environmental groups on
    how they treat the non-native species. We do insist that they
    be treated humanely.
        We were not all that happy with the hunting set-up, though,
    because we saw it as not a particularly fair chase
    circumstance. So it presented a dilemma for us in that respect.
    And we really didn't weigh in on it one way or the other, to be
    quite honest with you.
        Mr. Young. The reason I ask that question is, to me, if the
    Humane Society is against the demise of any animal, you know,
    can you recognize these quotes? If we can shut down all sport
    hunting in a moment, we would?
        Mr. Pacelle. Let me just, let me first address the issue
    that the Humane Society, you know, is--I can't remember the
    phrasing you said about any animal. But really, we are an anti-
    cruelty organization. I mean, we reluctantly support the humane
    euthanasia in shelters if there are not enough homes for them.
    So really what we want to do is eliminate gratuitous cruelty
    and suffering.
        In terms of the quote that you mentioned, that has been
    kicking around, Congressman Young, since the early 1990s. I
    have repeatedly emphasized that the Humane Society of the
    United States works to stop what we regard as particularly
    egregious hunting practices.
        Now, I know that you agree with some of these practices,
    like bear baiting and aerial gunning of wolves. You and I
    disagree on those practices. But that is where we focus the
    preponderance of our energy, and not going after regular
    hunting practices.
        Mr. Young. Well, it says our goal is against sport hunting
    in the same category as cock-fighting and dog-fighting.
        Mr. Pacelle. Those are not quotes from me.
        Mr. Young. Well, I beg to differ. We have this document.
        Mr. Pacelle. Yes, I would like to see it, because they have
    been----
        Mr. Young. The second one is we have no----
        Mr. Pacelle.--kicking around the internet for 17 years.
        Mr. Young.--problems--this is a quote. ``We have no
    problems with the extension of domestic animals; they are
    creations of human selective breeding.''
        Mr. Pacelle. Yes, well, that is completely taken out of
    context, Congressman Young. I am glad to have the opportunity
    to correct it.
        Mr. Young. You are beginning to sound like a politician.
        Mr. Pacelle. Well, we have been following you for many
    years.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Young. I know you have. I appreciate it. And I welcome
    your following me, because every time you do, the numbers go
    up.
        Mr. Pacelle. Well, good for you. Glad we could help.
        Mr. Young. I appreciate it. I need all the help I can get.
        Mr. Pacelle. Yes, I know you do.
        Mr. Young. Welcome.
        Mr. Pacelle. I want to just comment on the selective
    breeding comment.
        I was asked to address an agricultural forum--this was a
    livestock forum--and I was asked if we need an endangered
    species for rare breeds of livestock. And I said that we
    didn't.
        And I am sure, Congressman Young, that you would agree that
    we don't need another Federal law to preserve every breed of
    domesticated species.
        Now, my own views on minor breeds have evolved over time.
    But it was in the context of rare breeds of livestock, and had
    nothing to do with domesticated animals in general. So I am
    very glad to have the opportunity to clarify that statement.
        Mr. Young. OK. Last question. Now, you do support the
    slaughter of the animals on Santa Rosa Island.
        Mr. Pacelle. No, we don't support the slaughter.
        Mr. Young. You don't support it. But you won't get involved
    to try to stop it.
        Mr. Pacelle. We thought that that legislation had a pretty
    clear political trajectory, and was passing.
        Mr. Young. So you do support it.
        Mr. Pacelle. No. We didn't take a position.
        Mr. Young. But you won't get involved in trying to stop the
    slaughter of those animals.
        Mr. Pacelle. That is correct. We did not take a position on
    that because we found----
        Mr. Young. So much for the Humane Society.
        Mr. Pacelle.--both options were unpalatable to us.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Young. And now I do
    have a couple of questions for the panel.
        The first one is for Mr. Pacelle. Mr. Hogan's comment that
    closing legal markets increases prices in the underground
    market. Could passage of this bill bring about that unintended
    consequence?
        Mr. Pacelle. To me, Madame Chairwoman?
        Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Pacelle.
        Mr. Pacelle. Yes, yes. Well, listen, we already have a
    situation where nearly two thirds of the states criminalize the
    trade in bear parts. What we are doing now is just having a
    consistent standard that addresses the problems in this country
    and internationally.
        Yes, when you criminalize something, you potentially can
    boost prices. But we think the far greater threat is the
    legalized trade in these species. We need to crack down on
    this. There are very large communities in the United States
    that have an interest in these products, and globally there are
    enormous markets.
        And until we curb the trade, many bear species are going to
    be threatened. And we simply don't want to encourage the
    inhumane killing of even a relatively abundant species like the
    American Black Bear. Why kill the animal for his or her gall
    bladder and bile? That is just an inhumane and barbaric act.
        Ms. Bordallo. I have another--thank you. I have another
    question for Mr. Perez.
        You testified that state laws and regulations currently
    prohibit the sale of black bear viscera, is that correct?
    Viscera, viscera.
        Oh, I am sorry. This is for Mr. Pacelle again, yes.
        Throughout nearly the entire range of the species, making
    the Lacey Act in its current form an effective tool for dealing
    with illegal trade in bear parts.
        Now, is this legislation duplicative of existing legal
    authority?
        Mr. Pacelle. The Lacey Act is a very valuable Federal tool
    to crack down on poaching and the illegal wildlife trade.
        Again, you know, it has nothing to do with hunting. Not
    even Congressman Young has a bear gall bladder pinned to his
    wall.
        The issue here is that we are harmonizing the state efforts
    with the national effort, because this country simply does not
    have an interest in protecting the industry of trading in bear
    gall bladders and bile. It is not a legitimate industry; it is
    even less legitimate than activities like dog fighting and cock
    fighting. There was actually money that was made in an industry
    sense. This is random killing of animals, with a few people
    profiting very handsomely from it.
        Ms. Bordallo. All right. So in answer to my question, it is
    not duplicating anything? Is that what you are saying?
        Mr. Pacelle. We believe, Congresswoman----
        Ms. Bordallo. It is.
        Mr. Pacelle.--that it is complementary.
        Ms. Bordallo. It is complementary.
        Mr. Pacelle. That the states are doing their job, the
    national government, the Federal government needs to do its
    job. Because we live in a global economy. The states don't have
    the range or the reach to address the global trade in bear
    parts.
        The United States is a party to CITES, the Convention on
    International Trade in Endangered Species. We have agents that
    can work with import-export issues, and can make multi-state
    cases.
        The State of Alaska wants to crack down on the trade in
    bear parts, as it does, that is great. But if it is a multi-
    state effort that involves Alaska, California, and Nevada, that
    is where the Federal government can play a complementary role
    and help the states.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
    Mr. Wittman from the State of Virginia.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. Mr. Perez, there
    have been allegations made that certain primates listed in our
    Endangered Species Act are being kept as pets. If this is true,
    doesn't the Fish and Wildlife Service already have the
    statutory authority to prosecute those individuals who attempt
    to sell these species across state lines?
        Mr. Perez. That typically would be true on its face. The
    reality is that there are various mechanisms by which we have
    the burden of proving that that particular item that resides in
    that home is indeed something that was acquired unlawfully. So
    we would have to backtrack to get to that point.
        There are a variety of circumstances, I would say
    predominantly, by which a possession of a primate in and of
    itself is not a violation.
        Mr. Wittman. OK, very good. Would you agree with the
    statement of Mr. Schoenke that the recognition of the legal
    bear-parts trade by the states is actually facilitating illegal
    markets?
        Mr. Perez. I believe the existence or non-existence of a
    legal mechanism for any species that we protect still, in and
    of itself, has that segment of society that wants to circumvent
    whatever those mechanisms are, either to make it easier, or
    necessarily just people who don't want to comply, or acquire
    items in contravention of that.
        So while it may have some contribution, I don't necessarily
    agree that it is going to create a market that doesn't already
    exist.
        Mr. Pacelle. May I respond to that, Congressman?
        Mr. Wittman. Sure.
        Mr. Pacelle. Thank you. I do think that the presence of a
    legal trade simply makes it more difficult for law enforcement
    to distinguish between the legal traffic and illegal traffic.
        So in that sense, I think that is a particularly compelling
    argument for the legislation. If you have this going on in some
    states, and people are then moving product to that state, it
    truly does undermine the effectiveness of laws in Virginia and
    West Virginia, and other states that are trying to crack down.
        You could have a situation where one state became a legal
    hub for the trade, and that would undermine the effectiveness
    of the prohibitions that many states have. And that is again
    why I think that this is a classic case of the complementarity
    between state and Federal policies.
        Again, on an issue where we are attempting to say what is
    the social value of a bear-parts trade. We do have hunting in
    this society, we do have legal bear-hunting seasons and
    trophies and hides. But we don't commercialize that trade.
    Those are for personal use. And the history of modern wildlife
    management is grounded on the idea of non-commercialization.
    Use the animals for your personal use; you are not to trade in
    their products, in their parts.
        This is an anti-poaching bill at its basic level, and a
    conservation measure.
        Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I would ask, I
    have a letter here from a number of associations. I would ask
    unanimous consent that it be entered into the record.
        Ms. Bordallo. So ordered.
        [The letter submitted for the record by the Archery Trade
    Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Bear
    Trust International, et al., follows:]

        Again, Mr. Ross, thank you for your testimony. Can you
    elaborate on the physical and social environments that are
    required by these animals? And why is it difficult to meet
    these needs in the home environment?
        Mr. Ross. Well, as Dr. Goodall alluded to, when we are
    thinking about the behavioral and physical needs of these
    animals, it does range quite a bit between tamarins and some of
    the smaller monkeys, all the way up to the great apes,
    orangutans, and chimpanzees.
        That said, all of these animals are highly intelligent, and
    most of them are very social, requiring on both hands a very
    secure environment, and a very complex environment. Most of
    these needs take years of training to try to design. I can
    think specifically of our new facility at Lincoln Park Zoo,
    which took, you know, three or four years to design the
    biosecurity to keep these animals inside safely, both from an
    animal standpoint and from a visitor standpoint. And these
    resources and expertise are just, just not there in the private
    pet ownership community, where they are able to securely keep
    these animals in, both from a safety standpoint, but also for
    the animal welfare requirements.
        Ms. Bordallo. I think the main part of my question was,
    what is the difference between the zoo environment and the home
    environment? Would one be better than the other?
        Mr. Ross. Yes, I would say very much so. Zoos are able to
    keep primates in more species-typical groupings. For instance,
    chimpanzees, we have 12 chimpanzees in our facility that can
    live together; as opposed to a pet circumstance, where those
    chimpanzees are living simply with other humans, and not with
    others of their kind.
        Having a chimpanzee, for example, live alone and only with
    humans presents an unfamiliar social and psychological
    environment, which is not conducive to its own welfare.
        Mr. Pacelle. May I just say a quick word about that?
        Ms. Bordallo. Certainly.
        Mr. Pacelle. Yes. You know, as Mr. Ross indicated, there
    are 216 accredited zoos in the United States. We heard
    testimony today that there are perhaps 15,000 primates in
    private hands.
        The zoos have standards in terms of professional care. They
    have resources. They have enclosures that protect the primates
    from people, so there is an exclusion that goes on.
        Primates in the home can interact not only with members of
    the family, but they can interact with visitors who come to the
    home. Because they don't have the attention to resources and
    security that the zoos do, the animals may escape and get into
    the community. So the points of contact with the public are
    potentially much more vast because there are many more
    different points where they live versus the 200 or so zoos.
        And again, the zoos have standards, the AZA has standards
    about not having any interaction between the primates and the
    visitors, in terms of physical contact. Whereas in the home
    setting, there are no standards at all, and people just rely on
    their own judgment, which we have heard many times is often
    very bad.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. I would agree. I think there
    certainly is security and protection in a zoo, whereas in a
    home environment, if the animal decides to become aggressive,
    it is much more dangerous. So I can see that.
        I would like to thank all of the witnesses for their
    participation in the hearing today. Members of the Subcommittee
    may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we
    will ask you to respond to these in writing. The hearing record
    for all the witnesses, both panel I and panel II, will be held
    open for 10 days for these responses.
        If there is no further business before the Subcommittee,
    the Chairwoman again thanks the members of the Subcommittee and
    our witnesses. And the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

        [A statement submitted for the record Dr. David L.
    Garshelis, Co-Chair IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist Group, Bear
    Project Leader, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
    Adjunct Professor, University of Minnesota, follows:]

    Statement submitted for the record by Dr. David L. Garshelis, Co-Chair
        IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist Group, Bear Project Leader, Minnesota
       Department of Natural Resources, Adjunct Professor, University of
                                   Minnesota

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
        This testimony represents the views of the two largest groups of
    professional bear biologists and conservationists in the United States
    and globally (IUCN Bear Specialist Group and International Association
    for Bear Research and Management). We applaud the desire of the U.S.
    Congress to aid in the conservation of bears. Here, we raise four
    principal points regarding the proposed Bear Protection Act: (1)
    American black bears in the U.S. (and Canada) are thriving, and are
    minimally affected by poaching for bear parts. The Bear Protection Act
    will have little impact on populations of this species, although it may
    help to apprehend some poachers. (2) Poaching for bear parts (gall
    bladders and paws) is still rampant in Asia, even though the killing of
    bears and selling of bear parts is illegal in most Asian countries, and
    import and export of bear parts within Asia and between Asia and the
    U.S. is regulated by CITES. The Bear Protection Act, as written will
    provide no benefit to bear populations in Asia. (3) We recommend two
    additions to the bill: the inclusion of bear paws among the items
    banned from trade, and an exemption for scientists to transport bear
    parts across state lines for research purposes. Because there is great
    interest in the physiology of bear hibernation and potential
    applications to human medicine, some organs of bears are of particular
    interest, and are often shipped to experts in different parts of the
    country. (4) As this bill suggests a genuine concern by the U.S.
    Congress about the detrimental effects of the trade in bear parts on
    bear populations worldwide, we recommend more effective legislation
    that would directly address the dire situation for bears in Asia.
    Reduction of poaching is the paramount issue, and a multi-faceted
    effort to accomplish this will require significantly increased funding.
    Funding is also necessary to evaluate and address the issue of Chinese
    and Vietnamese bear farms (where 13,000 bears are milked for their
    bile), and to provide scientific data on the extent, relative size, and
    changes in populations of wild bears, which can be used to highlight
    conservation problems and direct resources. A Bear Conservation Act
    that included a funding provision like that of other multinational
    species conservation acts would dramatically improve the outlook for
    Asian bears. Meanwhile, we support the intent of the Bear Protection
    Act to crack down on commercial bear poachers, hoping that this is the
    first step in improved efforts at conserving bears.
    INTRODUCTION
        Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is David
    Garshelis, and I am delighted to have been invited to comment on the
    proposed Bear Protection Act from the perspective of a bear scientist
    and applied conservationist. For the past 25 years I have been a
    professional bear researcher for the Minnesota Department of Natural
    Resources. For nearly 20 years I have also conducted research projects
    on Asian bears, in collaboration with Asian students and biologists.
    The views expressed here are not only my own, but represent those of
    both the IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist Group (BSG) and the International
    Association for Bear Research and Management (IBA). I co-chair the BSG
    with Dr. Bruce McLellan, and am an ex-officio member of the governing
    Council of the IBA.
        The BSG and IBA are the largest and most respected professional
    organizations for wildlife biologists working to manage, conserve, and
    restore the world's bears. These two organizations work closely
    together in gathering and utilizing scientific information to sponsor,
    conduct, and evaluate conservation and management programs on all eight
    species of bears. These organizations are comprised of nearly 600 bear
    specialists from over 50 countries, and include university professors,
    biologists working in natural resource agencies, non-governmental
    organizations, and zoos, graduate students, and educators. Our members
    conduct scientific research, monitor and manage bear populations,
    interact with government agencies to promote bear conservation, and
    work to prevent human-bear conflicts. IBA sponsors international
    conferences and publishes the peer-reviewed scientific journal Ursus,
    which is the foremost source of technical and scientific information
    about the world's bears.
        Both groups have had input into and approved the following
    testimony regarding the proposed Bear Protection Act.
    STATUS OF WILD BLACK BEARS IN THE U.S.
        American black bears (Ursus americanus) range through Canada, the
    United States, and northern Mexico. As recently as the 1970s, most U.S.
    states had declining populations, and were struggling to reverse a long
    downward trend. That decline resulted mainly from extensive forest
    clearing combined with the unrestricted killing of bears as nuisances
    or pests. This trend has since been reversed through habitat management
    (mainly targeted at other species, but benefiting bears), stricter
    regulations regarding the killing of nuisance bears, public education
    on avoiding nuisance bear situations, and tighter regulation of hunter
    harvests.
        Compared with most other North American big game species, American
    black bears have a low reproductive rate, so population recovery tends
    to be slow. Recovery may also be hampered by habitat fragmentation in
    some places (e.g., Louisiana and Florida). Nevertheless, the return of
    robust populations of American black bears has been a significant
    success story across the continent.
        Today at least 17 of 41 states with resident black bears have
    populations that are significantly increasing; none have declining
    populations. Additionally, black bear migrants have appeared in such
    states as South Dakota, Nebraska, and Rhode Island (where they have not
    existed for 200 years).
        The total U.S. population of black bears, excluding Alaska, is
    estimated at about 300,000, and the total Canadian population likely
    exceeds 450,000. State management agencies or universities have
    conducted scientific studies to estimate population size and rates of
    change of many U.S. bear populations. At least 18 states estimate
    populations of 5,000 or more black bears, 8 of which have more than
    20,000. No reliable estimates exist for Alaska, but the population of
    black bears there is believed to exceed 100,000, yielding a total for
    the continent of 900,000. The continental population has been growing
    at about 2% per year for the past two decades.
        Black bears are presently harvested as a game species in 28 U.S.
    states and 12 Canadian provinces or territories. The annual hunter
    harvest across the continent is 40,000-50,000 black bears. Hunters kill
    bears for recreation and for products, such as the hide and meat. Some
    surveys have indicated that hunters view the acquisition of meat as a
    prime reason for black bear hunting. The sale of meat is banned, but
    many U.S. states all Canadian provinces with black bears allow the sale
    of hides and skulls. It is believed, however, that few people hunt
    specifically to sell these parts, as the profit is likely to be small.
        Bear gall bladders and paws, however, can be sold at a sizeable
    profit. The former is prized in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), and
    the latter as an expensive delicacy in Asia. The high price of these
    commodities creates a motive to poach black bears. However, while each
    year some bear poachers involved in the trade of these parts are
    apprehended, wildlife agencies across the U.S. and Canada indicate that
    such poaching has a negligible impact on American black bear
    populations. The legal harvest of black bears is by far the largest
    source of mortality for this species. This and all other major sources
    of human-caused mortality (e.g., nuisance kills, collisions with
    vehicles, poaching) are now controlled to the extent that in most
    areas, black bear populations are thriving.
    STATUS OF WILD BEARS IN ASIA
        Of the eight species of bears in the world, six live in Asia, and
    four live only in Asia. We center our comments on Asian bears because
    they have been most severely impacted by the trade in bear parts. Four
    Asian jurisdictions are the principal users of bear gall bladders and
    paws (China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea), thus prompting illegal
    importation of these parts from other Asian countries, and sale of
    parts from bears taken within these countries.
        Gall bladders and paws from Asiatic black bears (U. thibetanus),
    Brown bears (U. arctos), Sun bears (Helarctos malayanus), and Sloth
    bears (Melursus ursinus) are all marketed, but the greatest demand by
    far is for Asiatic black bears. Accordingly, even in places where
    Asiatic black bears and Sun bears occur together, poachers target the
    former. Sun bears and Sloth bear populations are suffering from habitat
    loss and direct killing for reasons other than the trade in bear parts
    (e.g., to protect crops or for human safety), whereas the trade in bear
    parts is a prime concern principally for Asiatic black bears.
        Asiatic black bears are very similar to American black bears
    ecologically and biologically. They occupy 18 countries in Asia,
    ranging from Iran in the west, across northern India, most of Southeast
    Asia, north through a large portion of China, the Korean Peninsula,
    parts of the Russian Far East, Japan, and Taiwan (see map, Appendix 1).
        No reliable estimates exist for populations of Asiatic black bears
    anywhere within their range because scientific data are lacking.
    However, four countries claim to have more than 5,000 Asiatic black
    bears (India, China, Russia, and Japan), one of which (China) estimates
    more than 20,000 (China may have half the world's population of this
    species). While these may seem to be a large numbers, it is important
    to realize that most Asiatic black bear populations are highly
    fragmented by human activities into much smaller isolates, making them
    even more vulnerable to uncontrolled killing and potential extirpation.
    Only two countries are believed to have increasing populations of this
    species: Japan, where they are hunted much like the U.S., and South
    Korea, where they are increasing only because the small population
    there is being augmented with bears from Russia. Rangewide, we estimate
    that numbers of Asiatic black bears have declined by 30-50% during the
    past 30 years.
        A major factor contributing to the decline of Asiatic black bears
    is thought to be poaching for gall bladders and paws. This information
    derives from anecdotal reports, surveys of local people, and occasional
    confiscations of large numbers of bear parts (sometimes in the
    hundreds). In truth, there is no scientific documentation of the status
    of this species. Population studies, which are common for bears
    throughout the U.S. and Canada, and generally funded by state and
    provincial agencies, are beyond the technical and/or financial means of
    most Asian countries, and very few American biologists have been able
    to work on Asian bears due to severe shortages of funding for such
    cooperative efforts.
        Asiatic black bears are killed either directly by commercial bear
    poachers, indirectly by hunters seeking other species, such as deer or
    wild boar, or by people protecting their crops or property. In some
    countries bears are killed with guns, but in many countries guns are
    illegal so people use wire snares, rat poison, pit-fall traps, or
    homemade bombs (which the bears bite). Once the bear is killed, whether
    intentionally or incidentally, the parts are sold, even though this is
    officially illegal in nearly all of Asia.
    WHAT THE BILL WILL ACCOMPLISH
        Presently, a variety of laws govern the sale of gall bladders and
    paws of American black bears. Five U.S. states allow hunters taking a
    bear in that state to sell the gall bladder, and four of these states
    plus three others allow the hunter to sell the paws. Another six states
    (three with healthy bear populations of their own) allow residents to
    purchase gall bladders and paws from bears taken in other states (but
    not that state), as long as there is documentation that the kill was by
    a legal hunter. Four other states, all without bears, have no laws
    concerning the sale of bear gall bladders or paws, effectively allowing
    such sales.
        Given that legal sales require legal take, and that hunters
    generally are allowed to take only one bear per year, it seems
    inconceivable that hunters could have much of a legal business selling
    bear parts. Moreover, since there are only five states that allow the
    sale of these parts from their own hunted bears, it is only the bear
    populations in these states that are potentially affected by any legal
    commercial trade in these parts; all these states, however, have
    robust, stable or increasing populations. Hence, the bill is likely to
    have little or no direct affect on American black bear populations.
        It is possible, though, that the illegal trade in American black
    bear parts is facilitated to an extent by the varied laws that allow
    some legal trade across state borders. In that sense, the bill may
    assist law enforcement agencies in catching and prosecuting bear
    poachers.
        The export of American black bear parts to Asia has been regulated
    by CITES since 1992, when the species was listed in Appendix II due to
    similarity of appearance of their gall bladders and paws to those of
    Appendix I Asian bear species. This listing requires a CITES
    certificate of origin for any parts to be legally transported across
    international borders; CITES certificates of origin are provided only
    with proof that the bear was legally taken.
        There are very few cases of American black bear parts being legally
    exported to Asia. Moreover, since all legal exports are from hunter-
    harvested bears, this trade has little impact on the already well-
    managed populations of this species. The reason for the CITES Appendix
    II listing was to require identification tags on these parts, so they
    could be distinguished from those of Asiatic black bears. This gives
    law enforcement personnel in Asia greater power to make arrests, as
    untagged gall bladders of Asiatic black bears could not be passed off
    as being from legally-obtained American black bears.
        This bill would prohibit all export of gallbladders from American
    black bears. Given the low legal export and CITES regulations already
    in place, it appears to us that the bill would provide minimal added
    conservation benefit to Asian bears.
    WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH
        The stated purpose of the bill is to ``conserve global bear
    populations.'' The bill also mentions thousands of bears in China that
    are kept on farms and milked for their bile. Whereas we agree that the
    protection of wild Asian bears and elimination of bear farming are
    noble goals, we believe that the bill will have little or no effect on
    either. The bill is referred to as the ``Bear Protection Act'', but
    will do little to help bears in the places where they genuinely need
    more protection.
        There is potentially some merit, though, in leading by example,
    even if the protective measures offered by the bill are not needed in
    the United States. Thus, although the bill does not directly address
    the plight of Asian bears, it provides evidence that the United States
    recognizes that the gall bladder trade is a principal factor impacting
    Asian bears. Furthermore, passage of the bill would indicate that the
    magnitude of this issue has persuaded the federal government of the
    United States to override state laws in order to obtain a unified
    position on the trade in gallbladders. That may send an important
    message to Asia about the U.S. commitment to deter the trade in bear
    parts.
        The problem is that the message, for all its good intentions, may
    signify little to the countries where the trade in bear parts is
    particularly problematic. Governments in Asia are already cognizant
    that bear poaching is largely related to the trade in bear parts, but
    most either deny that this poaching is having a large effect, or
    recognize the problem but cannot do anything about it. Most already
    have strict laws prohibiting the trade in bear parts, but are unable to
    enforce them (see Appendix II).
        The context of the U.S. and Asian situations is so different as to
    be virtually incomparable, so leading and following really make little
    sense. American black bears are so numerous that the annual harvestable
    take through legal hunting approaches the total world population of
    Asiatic black bears. Gall bladders have no value to most American
    citizens, so hunters discard them in the woods. American black bear
    hunters tend to be middle class people who hunt for recreation and for
    trophies. A law prohibiting trade in gall bladders would affect only a
    small minority of Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioners living in
    the U.S. In China, by contrast, there is a large demand for this
    product by upper income people, while many desperately poor people live
    in rural areas occupied by bears. To those poor people, killing a bear
    and selling its parts, particularly a bear that has been damaging their
    few crops, can make a difference in how much food or medicine they can
    buy or whether their family can afford small luxury items, like a
    television. Although both the sale of parts and the killing of bears is
    forbidden (with a few exceptions), very little enforcement of these
    laws occurs because there are too few enforcement personnel, and a
    general lack of recognition that bears are declining. The U.S. model,
    where tens of thousands of bears are harvested for sport, and a
    medicinal commodity routinely discarded, simply does not apply to the
    situation in Asia.
    ISSUES MISSING FROM THE BILL
        The one potential benefit of this bill is that it might deter some
    commercially-motivated bear poaching. If that is the chief aim, then
    bear paws should also be included in the ban. Paws are not used in TCM,
    but are sought after as a delicacy, and command a high price. Recent,
    large confiscations of shipments of bear paws on their way to China
    (from Russia and various countries in Southeast Asia) are evidence of
    the demand for this product, and potentially devastating effects on
    wild populations of Asian bears.
        Just as with gall bladders, the trade in paws has little adverse
    effect on populations of American black bears. However, just as with
    gall bladders, there is a patchwork of state laws regarding the sale of
    bear paws (because most of these laws are archaic and did not recognize
    that this is an edible product). It is possible that some poachers kill
    bears principally to sell their paws. Therefore, it seems logical that
    if the interstate sale of gall bladders is prohibited, that paws (but
    not claws) be included as well.
        The proposed bill includes all bear viscera, not just the gall
    bladder. The reason for this is unclear, as other organs have no
    commercial value. However, scientists are presently involved in a
    number of studies of these other organs. Several of these studies
    relate to bear physiology during hibernation, the understanding of
    which may ultimately provide medical benefits to humans. Organs are
    shipped to the few experts across the country. It appears that this
    bill prohibits the import or export of all bear viscera across state
    lines without exception. We argue that an exemption should be made for
    scientific purposes, and further that any permitting for such transport
    by scientists should be extremely simple, as often the products need to
    be shipped fresh (immediately after the bear dies, often when the death
    is unanticipated).
    WHAT IS REALLY NEEDED
        We applaud the Congress of the United States for the concern over
    the trade in bear parts. Although our testimony demonstrates that this
    bill, as written, will have little or no actual effect on bear
    populations anywhere in the world (though it might help deter some
    poaching within the U.S.), we think it provides an opportunity for
    greater discourse about bear conservation. We thus view this as a
    positive step toward a more concerted effort to address this issue in a
    more direct way. Indeed, we hope that any publicity arising from this
    bill uses the opportunity to highlight the true depth of the problem,
    rather than credit the bill with solutions. Moreover, we hope that it
    generates a greater effort to find real solutions.
        The situation for bears in Asia is the opposite of that in the U.S.
    Habitat loss in Asia continues to be a concern in many areas, although
    efforts are underway in some countries to reverse it. Asiatic black
    bear hunting is forbidden in most places, but poaching continues to be
    widespread, fueled largely by the demand for gall bladders and paws.
    The situation is complicated by the fact that bear bile has proven
    medicinal benefits and a 3,000-year history in TCM. The situation is
    further confounded by the farming of 12,000-13,000 bears in China and
    Vietnam, where they are milked for their bile. Chinese authorities
    claim that this vast production of cheap bile diminishes the demand for
    more expensive bile from wild bears, and thus reduces the killing of
    wild bears; opponents of bear farms fear that increased accessibility
    to farmed bear bile (now in such surpluses that it is sold in non-TCM
    products, such as shampoos, lotions, cosmetics, sports drinks, and
    toothpaste) may encourage more users.
        Successes in restoring American black bears and brown (grizzly)
    bears of North America and parts of Europe have demonstrated that the
    key to bear conservation is reducing human-caused mortality and
    providing sufficient habitat. Thus, in Asia, reduction in the trade in
    bear parts, combined with habitat protection, is essential. The
    situation for bears in Asia is complicated by the fact that the present
    level of information is so poor. Increasing complaints of bears raiding
    cropfields gives the false perception to government authorities that
    populations are burgeoning, when in reality this trend likely reflects
    diminishing habitat quality in the adjacent forest and increasing human
    incursions with agriculture into the few areas of bear habitat that
    remain.
        We believe there is time to act on behalf of Asian bear
    conservation in a meaningful way, and to reverse their downward slide.
    Below we list the top priorities:
          Survey portions of the geographic range where the
    continued existence of bears is unknown. Although China comprises the
    largest area of range for Asiatic black bears, up to half of the
    assumed range in China may not even be occupied by bears (Appendix I).
    We recently learned that another Asian bear species, the Sloth bear,
    may have disappeared recently from Bangladesh; this loss was undetected
    by authorities because they have no knowledge of where bears actually
    exist. These examples demonstrate the poor state of knowledge about
    these species. It is not only important to know where bears exist, but
    also to train local biologists on how to detect bear presence, so
    changes in distribution can be readily ascertained.
          Obtain information on bear population trends. Very little
    data are available on population trends of any Asian bears, but with
    few exceptions, present evidence indicates that most populations are
    declining: area and quality of forested habitats are generally in
    decline, poaching levels remain high, and knowledgeable local people
    typically indicate that poaching has caused visible declines in bear
    numbers. One great hindrance to bear conservation, though, is the
    reluctance of government authorities in Asia to admit that populations
    are in decline. We believe that there are ways to more effectively
    monitor population trends, and that if government authorities were
    provided better data showing what are likely to be alarming declines in
    bear numbers, more action would be taken, and such action could be
    directed at the areas most in need.
          Conduct direct, on-the ground conservation work on issues
    affecting bears in Asia. We see several potential ways that Asian
    governments could improve conservation of bears. These include:
    assistance with reducing human-bear conflicts (bears raiding crops and
    damaging property); improved training, increased staff, and provision
    of better equipment for park guards and local authorities dealing with
    poachers; better training for patrolling staffs of nature reserves for
    monitoring bear occurrence and finding bear poaching activities;
    establishment of reserves to protect bears in key areas where
    populations are small and disjunct; increased CITES enforcement staff
    to thwart imports and exports of bear parts; and increased education
    about the status of Asian bears and effects of the bile trade, provided
    through television programs, signs, school programs, and local
    community activities.
          Address the bear farming issue. The Chinese government
    asserts that bile produced on bear farms reduces the demand for wild
    bile, and hence the impetus to poach wild bears. The counter-argument
    is that this large quantity of relatively cheap bile and the active
    promotion and marketing of the sale of this bile entices more users,
    with some ultimately desiring and being able to afford wild bile. A
    rigorous study is needed to resolve this important debate, because if
    the latter, counter-argument were correct, it would provide a
    conservation rationale (not just an animal welfare rationale) for
    closing these farms. Meanwhile, thousands of bears reside on farms,
    many in inhumane conditions. A non-governmental organization has raised
    funds to house a few hundred bears that have been removed from some of
    the worst farms. Vietnamese and Chinese authorities are willing to
    remove thousands more, but large captive facilities are needed to house
    them (because these bears would be incapable of surviving in the wild).
        The scope of these issues is massive, and the funding needed to
    address them is also therefore large. Professional organizations like
    ours, and other conservation organizations, have not been able to raise
    sufficient funds to have much of an effect. For example, the
    International Association for Bear Research and Management is only able
    to provide small annual grants, averaging $5,000 each, for about 10-12
    bear research and conservation projects worldwide. An order of
    magnitude larger source of funding is needed, such as that provided by
    the Multinational Species Conservation Funds. These funds, allocated
    for the conservation of African and Asian elephants, rhinos, tigers,
    great apes, and marine turtles, have been tremendously effective in
    reversing dire conditions for these imperiled species.
        Obviously there is a need for more funding for conservation for a
    host of other varied taxa, of which bears are just one. We restrict our
    argument that bears should be a priority for such funding to the simple
    point that Congress has overtly acknowledged this priority through
    deliberation of the Bear Protection Act. If the passage of that bill is
    to stand as an initial small step toward worldwide bear conservation
    action administered by the U.S. government, and does so mainly by
    increasing awareness of the looming issue of the gall bladder trade,
    then the next, crucial step is increased funding directed at the real
    issues, which occur in Asia.
        Our endorsement of the present bill is thus predicated on follow-up
    action, specifically increased funding to address the pressing
    conservation issues in Asia that result from the trade in bear parts.
    If Congress only goes as far as to pass the present legislation,
    thereby restricting the small-scale legal trade in gall bladders within
    the U.S., then little real bear conservation will be accomplished.
    CONCLUDING COMMENTS
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments that will
    hopefully forge a fruitful path toward effective conservation of the
    world's bears. Neither I, nor the organizations that I represent,
    intended through this testimony to give the impression that we did not
    see value in the proposed Bear Protection Act. We only wanted to stress
    the issue that we thought other testimony would likely miss: the
    problem regarding the trade in bear parts is much larger than can be
    dealt with by simply strengthening the laws regarding interstate
    trafficking of gall bladders. Our organizations, composed of
    professional biologists, do not deal with enforcement, so we are not in
    a position to comment on how much such a bill would aid in the
    prosecution of poachers. Thus, we restricted our comments to
    population-level effects on bears. By doing so we hope that we have not
    diminished what others might testify to in terms of the enhanced
    ability of enforcement personnel to stop bear poaching. Of course we
    support any measure that cracks down on poachers.
        Had I been present to testify orally, and had I been asked whether,
    in my opinion, this bill should pass, I would certainly have said yes.
    But, I would have hastened to add--please keep in mind that the issue
    is much larger, and so this legislation should be viewed as a
    beginning, not the end.
        I welcome further discussion on any of these issues (dave.garshelis
    @dnr.state.mn.us; 218-327-4146).