[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 136 (Monday, July 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36382-36400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17432]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
50 CFR Part 18

RIN 1018-AD04


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule and findings.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the proposed legal and scientific 
findings on the importation of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) taken in 
sport hunts in Canada, including ones taken, but not imported, prior to 
enactment of the 1994 Amendments of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(MMPA). Specifically, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 
proposes to find that the Northwest Territories (NWT), the only area in 
Canada that currently allows sport hunting, has a monitored and 
enforced sport-hunting program that ensures polar bears are legally 
taken, is consistent with the purposes of the Agreement on the 
Conservation of Polar Bears, and is based on scientifically sound 
quotas ensuring the maintenance of the affected population stock at a 
sustainable level, provided certain provisions are in place in the 
specific population. The Service proposes to approve populations where 
the status of the population has been stable or increasing for previous 
harvest seasons and local and/or joint management agreement(s) are in 
place. Since Canada and the United States are Parties to the Convention 
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES), the Service proposes that import and export procedures are in 
place to meet CITES requirements. This notice also proposes regulations 
on the disposition of the gall bladder, tagging of trophies, and import 
procedures needed to monitor legal import and to ensure the import will 
not contribute to illegal trade in bear parts. The Service invites 
comment on options proposed to meet the provisions of Section 102(b) of 
the MMPA concerning the importation of pregnant and nursing polar 
bears. For polar bears taken in the NWT prior to the Amendments through 
the effective date of the final rule, the Service proposes to issue 
permits when proof of legal take is demonstrated and the provisions of 
the Act concerning pregnant and nursing polar bears are met. The 
Service intends to make these findings for multiple sport-hunting 
seasons pending review as required 

[[Page 36383]]
under Section 104(c)(5)(C) of the MMPA. This proposed rule is a 
supplement to the Service's previous proposed rule published on January 
3, 1995.

DATES: The Service will consider comments and information received 
August 31, 1995 in formulating its decision on this notice and proposed 
rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments and information should be sent to: Director, Fish 
and Wildlife Service, c/o Office of Management Authority, 4401 N. 
Fairfax Drive, Room 420C, Arlington, VA 22203. Materials received will 
be available for public inspection by appointment from 7:45 a.m. to 
4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Office of Management 
Authority, Room 434. The Service has prepared a draft Environmental 
Assessment (EA) for this proposal. A copy of the draft EA may be 
obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the contact 
listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Stansell, Office of Management 
Authority, at the above address, telephone (703) 358-2903; fax (703) 
358-2281.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 3, 1995, the Service published in the Federal Register 
(60 FR 70) a proposed rule to establish application requirements, 
permit procedures, issuance criteria, permit conditions, and a special 
permit issuance fee. At that time, the Service was gathering 
information for this second proposed rule. This rule proposes the legal 
and scientific findings required by the 1994 Amendments that need to be 
made prior to the Service issuing permits to allow for the importation 
of sport-hunted trophies of polar bears legally taken by the applicant 
while hunting in Canada. Based on information on polar bear populations 
in Canada and Canada's management program, the Service believes these 
proposed findings are consistent with section 104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA. 
The Service invites comment on three proposed options to meet the 
requirements of Section 102(b) of the MMPA that polar bears may not be 
imported if the bear at the time of taking was pregnant or a nursing 
cub. The rule also proposes to amend the proposed permit regulations 
announced in the January 3, 1995, notice by adding regulations on 
certification of legal take by the NWT for polar bears taken prior to 
the effective date of any final rule; disposition of the gall bladder; 
tagging of trophies; and import procedures needed to monitor legal 
import and to ensure the import will not contribute to illegal trade in 
bear parts.
    In accordance with section 104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA, prior to 
issuing a permit for the importation of a polar bear trophy, the 
Service must make a finding that the polar bear was legally taken by 
the applicant, and in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission 
(MMC), and after opportunity for public comment must make the following 
findings: (A) Canada has a monitored and enforced sport-hunting program 
that is consistent with the purposes of the 1973 International 
Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (International Agreement); 
(B) Canada has a sport-hunting program that is based on scientifically 
sound quotas ensuring the maintenance of the affected population stock 
at a sustainable level; (C) the export from Canada and subsequent 
import into the United States are consistent with the provisions of 
CITES and other international agreements and conventions; and (D) the 
export and subsequent import are not likely to contribute to illegal 
trade in bear parts. According to the Committee Report (H.R. Rep. No. 
439, 103d Cong., 2d Sess.(1994)) these provisions were placed in the 
law partly to ensure that the importation of polar bear trophies into 
the United States would not increase hunting demand in Canada that 
would result in unsustainable harvest levels. It was felt that if 
Canada's polar bear management program regulates harvest through a 
quota system based on principles of sustainable yield, any increase in 
the harvest quota would be based on scientific data showing the 
population had increased to such an extent as to support an increase in 
the quota.
    The proposed rule provides information on polar bear biology and 
Canada's management program for this species. It discusses each of the 
legal and scientific findings for the Northwest Territories (NWT), the 
only area in Canada where polar bears can be harvested currently by 
non-residents through a regulated sport-hunting program.
    The Service is to make the findings in consultation with the MMC, 
an independent Federal agency with statutory authority to make 
recommendations pursuant to Title II of the MMPA. Copies of the 
information received from Canada have been provided to the MMC for this 
purpose. The Service intends to announce its decision on these proposed 
findings after consultation with the MMC and the opportunity for public 
comment.

Population Status and Distribution

    Although polar bears occur in most ice-covered areas of the Arctic 
Ocean and adjacent coastal land areas, their distribution is not 
continuous. They are most abundant along the perimeter of the polar 
basin for 120 to 180 miles (200 to 300 kilometers) offshore. The 
primary prey of polar bears is the ringed seal (Phoca hispida), 
followed by the bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus). The abundance of 
seals affects the distribution of polar bears. The long-term 
distribution of polar bears and seals depends on the availability of 
habitat which is influenced by seasonal and annual changes in ice 
position and conditions (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1995).
    It is estimated that there are 21,000 to 28,000 polar bears 
worldwide (Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) 1995). The number of 
polar bears in Canada is estimated at 13,120 in 12 relatively discrete 
populations, referred to as management units or subpopulations in some 
documents (Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT), unpublished 
documents on file with the Service) (Map 1).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 36384]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP17JY95.000



BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    The language in the Amendments refers to an ``affected population 
stock'' in the singular, and raises the issue of whether the Service 
needs to make the findings on one population for the whole of Canada or 
on the 12 populations under which Canada has been managing polar bears 
for over 20 years. In considering the following information, the 
Service has decided to treat the 12 Canadian populations as population 
stocks under the MMPA and make the proposed findings on that basis.
    Congressman Jack Fields, during the House of Representatives floor 
debate for the 1994 Amendments, clarified that ``the term `population 
stock' as defined in the MMPA means a group of marine mammals of the 
same species in a common spatial arrangement and is used in the bill to 
refer to these subpopulations and management units which reflect 
Canada's management regime'' (140 Cong. Rec. H2725, April 26, 1994).
    For many marine species, there have been difficulties in defining 
stocks consistently under the MMPA. This particularly became apparent 
when the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under 
the 1994 Amendments were tasked with conducting stock assessments to 
determine the number of animals that may be removed from a population 
by human-caused mortality. Dr. Barbara Taylor (1995) in a NMFS 
administrative report pointed out that although the definition of 
population remains illusive, it can be critical to good management. She 
asserted that ``population stock'' in the MMPA has both a biological 
and management meaning. Two populations should be managed separately if 
interchange is low as there are potentially strong negative effects of 
treating large areas as single populations when mortality is 
concentrated in small areas. Dr. Taylor also suggested that 
``maintaining the range of a species meets the MMPA objective of 
maintaining marine mammals as significantly functioning elements of 
their ecosystems.'' Canada's management program for polar bear 
recognizes 12 discrete populations with a set quota for human caused 
mortality specific to each population. Harvest data and scientific 
research have provided information to show that interchange between 
populations is low and human caused mortality is concentrated within 
localized areas. Therefore, the management of polar bears in Canada as 
discrete populations is consistent with the term ``population stock'' 
as used in the MMPA and ensures the maintenance of the polar bear 
throughout its range in Canada.
    The GNWT wrote the Service that Canada's ``stocks'' of polar bears 
are termed ``populations''. This designation is based on increasing 
knowledge on the movement of polar bears. Boundaries of polar bear 
populations in Canada were initially based on geographic features using 
reconnaissance surveys. Over time, the boundaries have been confirmed 
and refined through scientific research on the movement of polar bears 
(e.g., mark-recapture, mark-kill harvest data, radio tracking, and 
satellite telemetry), local knowledge of bear movements, and physical 
factors affecting movements, such as ice formation and location of 
polynyas (e.g., areas where ice consistently breaks up and creates open 
water or areas where ice is refrozen at intervals during the winter). 
The research and accumulation of other information are ongoing. For 
example, the recently collected satellite telemetry data are being 
analyzed to redetermine the population boundaries for the Parry 
Channel/Baffin Bay population (GNWT).
    Canada shares some polar bear populations with Greenland and 
Alaska. Northeastern Canada shares three populations (Queen Elizabeth 
Island, Baffin Bay/Parry Channel, and Davis Strait) with Greenland with 
the extent of exchange between Canada and Greenland as yet unclear. 
Northwestern Canada shares the Southern Beaufort Sea population with 
northern Alaska, with extensive east-west movements of polar bears 
between Canada and the United States.

Reproduction and Survival

    Polar bears are intimately associated with Arctic ice. Due to 
unpredictability in the structure of Arctic sea ice and associated 
availability of food, it is 

[[Page 36385]]
thought that adult males do not defend stable territories but may 
instead distribute themselves among different sea ice habitats at the 
same relative densities as solitary adult females (Ramsay and Stirling 
1986).
    Males locate females that are ready to breed by scent and tracks. 
Polar bears mate while on the sea ice between late March through May, 
with implantation occurring in September. Maternity dens are typically 
formed in drifted snow in late October and November and cubs are born 
in December and January (USFWS 1995).
    A summary of research data on the reproduction and survival in 
polar bears is given in Taylor et al. (1987) and Ramsay and Stirling 
(1986). The large-scale unpredictable fluctuations of the Arctic 
environment strongly affect the recruitment rate and the survival of 
young. Polar bears have a low birth rate and exhibit ``birth pulse'' 
reproduction. A small number breed for the first time at 3 years of age 
and slightly more at 4 years of age. Most females start to produce 
young at 5 or 6 years of age. The number of females available to breed 
is affected by the survival rates of cubs, adult female survival rates, 
litter size, and litter production rates. As cub and litter survival 
rates increase, the number of females available for breeding in any 
year decreases. In any year, 30 to 60 percent of available adult female 
polar bears do not breed or are not impregnated. Typically, each litter 
consists of two cubs. The overall sex ratio is 50 males to 50 females. 
Cubs remain with the female until they are about 2.5 years old, during 
which time the females avoid associating with adult males. When the 
cubs are weaned, the females are again ready for breeding. Some females 
lose their cubs and are available for breeding the next season. The 
average breeding interval is 3 years. This results in a skewed sex 
ratio, with fewer females available to breed in any one year than males 
and in intrasexual competition among males for access to breeding 
females. Females stop reproducing at about 20 years of age. Due to 
mortality, the average litter size ranges from 1.58 to 1.87 in the High 
Arctic populations to as high as 2.0 in Hudson Bay. The first year 
survival rate is high (0.70 to 0.85) because of the long period of 
female parental care. The life history strategy of the polar bear is 
typified by high adult survival rates (0.76 to 0.95).

Canada's Polar Bear Management Program

    Although each of the 12 populations of polar bear within Canada is 
managed as a unit, there is a somewhat complex sharing of 
responsibilities. Management has been delegated to the Provincial and 
Territorial Governments, but the Federal Government (Environment 
Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service) has an active research program and 
is involved in management of populations shared with other 
jurisdictions, especially ones with other nations. Native Land Claims 
have resulted in Co-management Boards for most of Canada's polar bear 
populations. Polar bears in Canada occur in the NWT, in the Yukon 
Territory, and in the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and 
Newfoundland and Labrador (Map 1). All 12 populations lie within or are 
shared with the NWT. Provincial boundaries extend only to the low water 
mark of the Hudson Bay. Canadian territorial waters within the Arctic 
Ocean, Hudson Bay, and all islands and marine waters are part of the 
NWT. The offshore marine areas along the coast of Newfoundland and 
Labrador are under Federal jurisdiction (GNWT).
    The Federal-Provincial Technical and Administrative Committees for 
Polar Bear Research and Management (PBTC and PBAC, respectively) were 
formed to ensure a coordinated management process consistent with 
internal and international management structures and the International 
Agreement. The Committees meet annually to review research and 
management of polar bears in Canada and have representation from all 
the Provincial and Territorial jurisdictions with polar bear 
populations, plus the Federal Government. Beginning in 1984, members of 
the Service have attended meetings of the PBTC and biologists from 
Norway and Denmark have attended a small number of meetings. In recent 
years, the PBAC meetings have included the participation of the non-
government groups, the Inuvialuit Game Council and the Labrador Inuit 
Association, for their input at the management level. Beginning in 
1995, representatives of Inuit groups harvesting polar bears were 
invited to attend PBTC meetings. The annual meetings of the PBTC 
provides for continuing cooperation between jurisdictions and for 
recommending management actions to the PBAC (Calvert et al. 1995). Most 
recently, emphasis has been on the development of Management 
Agreements, reducing quotas for populations thought to be over-
harvested, and conducting research on populations with uncertain status 
(PBSG 1995).

NWT's Polar Bear Management Program

    The NWT geographical boundaries include all Canadian lands and 
marine environment north of the 60th parallel (except the Yukon 
Territory) and all islands and waters in Hudson Bay and Hudson Strait 
up to the low water mark of Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. Polar bears 
are managed under the Northwest Territories Act (Canada). The 1960 
Order-in-Council granted the Commissioner in Council (NWT) authority to 
pass ordinances to protect polar bears, including the establishment of 
a quota system to manage polar bears, that are applicable to all 
people. The Wildlife Act, 1988, and Big Game Hunting Regulations 
provide supporting legislation which recognizes each polar bear 
population.
    Although the recently completed Inuvialuit and Nunavut Land Claim 
Agreements supersede the Northwest Territories Act (Canada) and the 
Wildlife Act, no change in management consequences for polar bears is 
expected. Under the umbrella of the NWT's Department of Renewable 
Resources (DRR), polar bears are co-managed through wildlife management 
boards, made up of Land Claim Beneficiaries and Territorial and Federal 
representatives. One of the strongest aspects of the program is that 
the management decision process is integrated between jurisdictions and 
with local hunters and management boards. A main feature of this 
approach is the development of Local Management Agreements between the 
communities that share a population of polar bears. These Agreements 
are then used to develop regulations which implement the agreements. 
Regulations specify who can hunt, season length, and age and sex 
classes that can be hunted, and the total allowable harvest for a given 
population in Polar Bear Management Areas. The DRR has officers to 
enforce the regulations in most communities of the NWT. Since the co-
management system strives to develop local support for regulations 
before they are implemented, there is strong community pressure to 
comply with management agreements. Incidents of violation of 
regulations, kills in defense of life, or exceeding a quota are 
investigated.
    There are a number of communities within the boundaries of each 
polar bear population. The total sustainable harvest for each 
population is divided among communities within the population 
boundaries, called settlement quotas. When agreement on a particular 
community's share of the 

[[Page 36386]]
sustainable yield has been reached, tags are provided each year to the 
Hunters' and Trappers' Organizations or Associations or Committees 
(HTO). This group in conjunction with members of the community, decides 
how many tags to allocate to sport hunting and how many are to be used 
by local hunters. Sport hunting is not administered separately from 
other polar bear harvesting. It should be noted that some communities 
may hold quota tags for several separate populations, but tags can be 
used only for the populations for which the tags are issued (GNWT).

Harvest of Polar Bears and Sport Hunting

    The hunting of polar bears is an important part of the culture and 
economy of indigenous peoples of the Arctic (PBSG 1995). A hunting 
season was first imposed in Canada in 1935. Hunting opportunities were 
restricted to Native people in 1949, with quotas for polar bears 
introduced in 1967. The harvest of polar bears was almost 700 in 1967/
68, but dropped dramatically with the introduction of quotas. In the 
1978/79 season, the largest increase occurred when the quota was 
increased by 12 percent (Lee et al. 1994). Since 1991, quotas have 
undergone major adjustments, mainly downward.
    In the NWT, the indigenous people in a settlement may authorize the 
sale of a permit from the quota to a non-resident hunter. These hunts 
are subject to certain restrictions: the hunt must be conducted under 
Canadian jurisdiction and guided by a Native hunter; transportation 
during the hunt must be by dog sled; the tags must come from the 
community quota; and tags from unsuccessful sport hunts may not be used 
again. Sport hunters typically select trophy animals, usually large 
adult males. Table 1 shows that in 1993/94, 79 percent of polar bears 
taken as sport-hunting trophies were male. It also summarizes the 
number of sport hunts that occurred in the different populations in the 
NWT for the last two harvest seasons. Sport hunting for polar bears 
began in the NWT in 1969/70 with three hunts and gradually increased 
(GNWT). The average over the last five seasons was 55 as summarized by 
the Service in Table 2. The maximum number of sport hunts in any one 
year was 83 which occurred in the 1987/88 season. The success rate 
varied from 30 percent in 1979/80 to 91 percent in 1985/86 (Lee et al. 
1994) and has averaged about 79 percent over the past five seasons. The 
number of quota tags used for sport hunting compared to the total known 
kill in the NWT averaged 10.9 percent annually over the last five 
seasons.

   Table 1.--Statistics for Polar Bear Sport Hunting in the NWT for Populations Identified as Southern Beaufort 
Sea (SB), Northern Beaufort Sea (NB), Queen Elizabeth Islands (QE), Parry Channel (PC), Baffin Bay (BB), Gulf of
                                        Boothia (GB), and Foxe Basin (FB)                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             1993/94 season                  1992/93 season     
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                   Population                     No. killed                             No. killed             
                                                   (No. not    Percent of    Percent      (No. not    Percent of
                                                 successful)     total         male     successful)     total   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB.............................................        3 (3)          9.7           67        1 (0)          2.7
NB.............................................        2 (3)          8.1          100        1 (1)          5.4
QE.............................................        0 (1)          1.6  ...........        1 (0)          2.7
PC.............................................       26 (2)         45.2           85       22 (2)         64.9
BB.............................................        5 (0)          8.1           80        2 (1)          8.1
GB.............................................        7 (3)         16.1           86        4 (1)         13.5
FB.............................................        5 (2)         11.3           40        0 (1)          2.7
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
        Total..................................      48 (14)  ...........           79       31 (6)  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              Table 2.--Summary of Sport Hunt Kills in NWT              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percent  
                                    No. killed               total sport
       Season            Total       (percent   Known total    hunt to  
                      sports hunt    success)   kill in NWT   known kill
                                                                in NWT  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989/90.............           60      48 (80)          537         11.2
1990/91.............           66      50 (76)          490         13.5
1991/92.............           48      39 (81)          549          8.7
1992/93.............           37      31 (84)          506          7.3
1993/94.............           62      48 (77)          432         14.4
                     ---------------------------------------------------
        Average.....           55      43 (79)          503         10.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is substantial economic return to the community from sport 
hunts. The potential value of the ``actual hunt cost'' in 1993/94 in 
Parry Channel for one polar bear was $18,500 (US) with 80 percent of 
the money staying in the community. However, only a few communities 
currently take part in sport hunts as it reduces hunting opportunities 
for local hunters (GNWT) and requires responsibilities in dealing with 
non-Native clients.
    Polar bear sport hunts for non-residents are usually arranged 
through an agent or broker. In general, the agent or broker contacts 
the community's Hunters' and Trappers' Organization or Associations or 
Committees (HTO) to arrange for the hunt including the acquisition of a 
hunting license and tag for the hunter. If the community has not 
already decided what portion of its quota, if any, to designate for 
sport hunters, the HTO representative presents all requests for sport-
hunt tags at a community meeting. The community decides on the number 
of 

[[Page 36387]]
tags to be designated for sport hunting. Then the fee for the tag is 
paid and the tag is allocated to a specific hunter. The tag cannot be 
resold or used by any other non-resident hunter. In most cases polar 
bear tags for sport hunts are retained by the DRR officer until 
provided to the hunter. In a few cases, the tags are retained by the 
HTO who in turn provide them to the hunters (GNWT).

Proposed Legal and Scientific Findings and Summary of Applicable 
Information

    Currently, only the NWT allows sport hunting of polar bear. Thus, 
the Service is proposing findings only for the NWT.

A. Legal Take

1. Proposed Finding
    The Service proposes to find that the NWT has a management program 
that ensures a polar bear was legally taken and to condition the permit 
as outlined below. This program includes the use of hunting licenses; 
quota tags; DRR officers in communities; collection of biological 
samples from the trophy and collection of data from the hunter; a 
regulated tannery; a computerized tracking system for licenses, permits 
and tags; and an export permit requirement to export the trophy from 
the NWT to other provinces and a CITES permit system if the trophy is 
exiting Canada. This is all within the context of the laws, 
regulations, and co-management agreements discussed earlier.
    For polar bears that are taken after the effective date of any 
final rule, the Service proposes to condition permits upon the 
presentation of a copy of the NWT hunting license with tag number and a 
Canadian CITES export permit that identifies the polar bear by hunting 
license and tag number to a Service inspector at the port at the time 
of import to satisfy the requirement of proof of legal take. For bears 
taken prior to the effective date of any final rule, the Service 
proposes to require the applicant to provide with his/her application a 
certification from the Department of Renewable Resources, Government of 
the Northwest Territories, that the polar bear was legally harvested 
and tagged, including the name of the hunter and location and season 
the bear was taken.
2. Summary of Legal Take
    As described above, the agent or broker usually obtains the hunting 
license and tag for the hunter. Once a polar bear is taken, the tag is 
affixed to the hide and biological samples requested by the DRR officer 
are collected. Polar bear tags are metal, designed for one-time use, 
and stamped with the words polar bear, an identification number, and 
the harvest year. The identification number in combination with the 
harvest year identifies the community to which the tag was assigned. If 
a tag is lost prior to being affixed to a hide, the lost tag number and 
other information as required must be reported to the DRR officer prior 
to issuance of a replacement tag. In the event that the sport hunt is 
unsuccessful, the unused tag is destroyed.
    By regulation, as soon as practicable after the bear is killed, a 
person must provide the following information to a DRR officer in the 
community, or a person who has been designated by the HTO and has the 
approval of a DRR officer: (a) The person's name; (b) the date and 
location where the bear was killed; (c) the lower jaw or undamaged 
post-canine tooth and, when present, lip tattoos and ear tags from the 
bear; (d) evidence of the sex of the bear; and (e) and any other 
information as required. Except where an officer verifies the sex of 
the polar bear, the baculum (i.e., penis bone) of the male polar bear 
must be provided for the purposes of determining sex. If proof of sex 
is not provided or an officer does not verify the sex of the bear, the 
bear will be deemed to have been female for the purposes of population 
trend/modelling.
    Additional information, collected to complete a numbered Polar Bear 
Hunter Kill Return form, includes: The community where the hunt was 
based; the polar bear population from which the bear was harvested; the 
harvest season in which the bear was taken; the sex of the bear; the 
approximate latitude and longitude of where the bear was taken using a 
map or description of the location with geographical references; 
general comments on the physical condition of the bear, including a 
measure of the fat depth; an indication of whether the bear was alone 
or part of a family group, including if the bear was a mother with 
cubs; the estimated age class of the bear before the tooth was 
examined; the disposition of the hide; the hide value to the hunter; 
the hunter's address and the hunter's license number; the guide/
outfitters name; and the name of the DRR officer in the applicable 
community.
    By NWT regulation, a licensed tanner must needle stamp each hide or 
pelt upon receipt so that the hide or pelt may be identified as 
belonging to a specific customer. Polar bear tags are not intended to 
remain on the hide during tanning. When a tag is removed for tanning, 
it is returned to the owner of the hide.
    In 1991, the DRR developed a Game License System to track all 
licenses, permits, and tags issued by the Department. It is accessible 
from any area of the NWT. All eight Regional Offices complete a monthly 
vendor return which is entered into the system. The vendor return 
contains all the licenses, permits, and tags that were issued during 
that month. Reports and searches may be generated as needed. Canada 
also maintains a computerized national polar bear harvest database. Up 
until quotas were established in 1967/68, harvest data were recorded 
opportunistically. With the introduction of quotas, a large percent of 
the harvest was recorded and since 1977/78 all harvests have been 
recorded. Should it be required, a polar bear trophy imported from 
Canada could be traced back to the individual who took the bear.
    A NWT Wildlife Export Permit must be obtained from a DRR officer 
prior to exporting wildlife, including polar bear parts. The hunter 
must show the hunting license to obtain a NWT Wildlife Export permit. 
Polar bear parts may be exported from Canada with a Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna 
(CITES) export permit (see discussion in section ``D'' below). The tag, 
either removed for tanning or removed at the time of export, needs to 
be submitted with supporting documentation as required for obtaining a 
CITES export permit (GNWT).
B. 1973 International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears

    During the 1950's and 1960's, there was a growing international 
concern for the welfare of polar bear populations. The primary concern 
was that the increased number of bears being killed could lead to 
endangerment of populations. In 1965 the PBSG, comprised of biologists 
from the five nations with jurisdiction over polar bears (Canada, 
Denmark (for Greenland), Norway, the United States, and the former 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), was formed under the auspices of 
the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural 
Resources, now known as the World Conservation Union (IUCN). This group 
was in large part responsible for the development and ratification of 
the International Agreement. It entered into force in 1976 for a 5-year 
period, and in 1981 was reaffirmed for an indefinite period. Greenland 
later was provided recognition through ``Home-rule'' 

[[Page 36388]]
although the Government of Denmark maintained its role in affairs of 
international scope.
    The International Agreement unites nations with a vested interest 
in the Arctic ecosystem in supporting a biologically and scientifically 
sound conservation program for polar bears. It is a conservation tool 
that provides guidelines for management measures for polar bears. It 
defines prohibitions on the taking of polar bears as well as the 
methods of taking, and identifies action items to be addressed by the 
signatories, including protection of polar bear habitat and conducting 
polar bear research. The International Agreement is not self-
implementing and does not in itself provide for national conservation 
programs. Each signatory nation has implemented a conservation program 
to protect polar bears and their environment (USFWS 1995). Since 
implementation and enforcement of the International Agreement is the 
responsibility of each signatory, different interpretations have 
resulted in a diversity of practices in managing polar bear populations 
(Prestrud and Stirling 1995).
    The main purpose of the PBSG is to promote cooperation between 
jurisdictions that share polar bear populations, coordinate research 
and management, exchange information, and monitor compliance with the 
International Agreement. At the 1993 PBSG polar bear meeting it was 
stated, ``Overall, it seemed that all countries were complying fairly 
well to the intent, if not necessarily the letter of the Agreement'' 
(PBSG 1995). Prestrud and Stirling (1995) concluded that the influence 
of the International Agreement on the circumpolar development of polar 
bear conservation has been significant and polar bear populations are 
now reasonably secure worldwide.
1. Proposed Finding
    The Service proposes to find that the NWT has a monitored and 
enforced sport-hunting program that is consistent with the purposes of 
the International Agreement as required by the 1994 Amendments under 
certain conditions. For the reasons discussed below, the Service 
proposes to approve only populations where the sport hunt for the 
previous year did not exceed 15 percent of the total quota for the NWT. 
Currently, all populations in the NWT meet this requirement (Table 2). 
The Service also proposes to approve only populations where provisions 
are in place to protect females with cubs, their cubs, and bears in 
denning areas during periods when bears are moving into denning areas 
or are in dens. At this time, the Service proposes not to approve the 
Southern Hudson Bay, the NWT population that is shared with Ontario, 
since Ontario has no provisions in place to protect females with cubs, 
their cubs, and bears in dens. The following discussion outlines the 
applicable requirements of the International Agreement as it relates to 
sport hunting and management of polar bear in the NWT.
2. Taking and Exceptions
    Article I of the International Agreement prohibits the taking of 
polar bears, including hunting, killing, and capturing. Article III 
establishes five exceptions to the taking prohibition of Article I as 
follows: (a) for bona fide scientific purposes, (b) for conservation 
purposes, (c) to prevent serious disturbance of the management of other 
living resources, (d) by local people using traditional methods in the 
exercise of their traditional rights and in accordance with the laws of 
that Party, and (e) wherever polar bears have or might have been 
subject to taking by traditional means by its nationals.
    Article III does not specifically exclude sport hunting from the 
taking prohibition. However, Mr. Curtis Bohlen, head of the U.S. 
delegation at the 1973 negotiations of the International Agreement, 
clarified to the Service (pers. comm. 1995) that sport hunting was not 
precluded and that the U.S. position, which was generally agreed to by 
all, was that sport hunting could occur if the national territories 
could be defined so the Arctic Ocean could become a sanctuary. Canada 
issued a declaration at the time of ratification of the International 
Agreement to clarify that it regards the guiding of sport hunters by 
aboriginal people, within conservation limits, to be allowed. The 
declaration states, ``The Government of Canada therefore interprets 
Article III, paragraph 1, subparagraphs (d) and (e) as permitting a 
token sports hunt based on scientifically sound settlement quotas as an 
exercise of the traditional rights of the local people.'' Based on the 
clause ``in accordance with the laws of that Party,'' Canada declared 
that the local people in a settlement may authorize the selling of a 
polar bear permit from the quota to a non-Inuit or non-Indian hunter, 
provided the hunt is conducted under the guidance of a Native hunter 
and by use of a dog team, and is conducted within Canadian 
jurisdiction.
    When the Service queried the GNWT for clarification of the term 
``token'' sport hunt, they said that the term ``* * * has not been 
discussed further by managers and user groups since the Agreement came 
into effect in 1976.'' The GNWT pointed out that the most important 
point to note is that polar bear tags allocated for guided sport 
hunting are part of the normal allocation to the community and are not 
added to the total (GNWT). Although the language of the International 
Agreement does not limit the amount of sport hunting within a country's 
national territory, Canada used the term ``token'' in its declaration. 
Thus, for purposes of issuing import permits for sport-hunted polar 
bear trophies taken in Canada, the Service proposes to approve only 
populations where sport-hunting for the previous harvest season is 
``token'', i.e., not to exceed 15 percent of the NWT total quota. This 
proposed percentage is based on the history of use, where typically 10 
to 15 percent of the annual quota is used by sport hunters (GNWT).
    Baur (1993) stated, ``The final exception, which allows for taking 
`wherever polar bears have or might have been subject to taking by 
traditional means by its nationals' is the most difficult to 
interpret.'' One possible interpretation would be that only 
``nationals'' of a country could take polar bears within that country's 
area of traditional taking. Under this interpretation it would be 
illegal for U.S. citizens to hunt polar bears outside the United 
States. The 1975 Environmental Assessment in support of U.S. Senate 
ratification of the International Agreement supported this 
interpretation. However, Baur wrote that there is no support in the 
background documentation leading up to the International Agreement to 
support this view.
    Baur (1993) suggested that the best interpretation of this 
exception has to do with the intent of all IUCN drafts to establish a 
taking prohibition outside of national territories, with particular 
reference to the ``high seas''. The Parties chose to define a sanctuary 
area for polar bears in the Arctic Ocean by limiting the area within 
which taking could occur to those where hunting by traditional means 
occurred. Since such hunting was conducted mostly by Natives by ground 
transportation (e.g., dog teams, snow mobiles, etc.), the area affected 
seldom reached into the areas commonly understood to be ``high seas'' 
(Baur 1993). The Service agrees with this interpretation for this 
exception in the International Agreement and notes that Canada allows 
sport hunting within this interpretation (GNWT). 

[[Page 36389]]

3. Protection of Habitat and Management of Polar Bear Populations:
    Article II of the International Agreement provides that Parties: 
(1) Take ``appropriate action to protect the ecosystem of which polar 
bears are a part''; (2) give ``attention to habitat components such as 
denning and feeding site and migration patterns''; and (3) manage polar 
bear populations in accordance with ``sound conservation practices'' 
based on the best available scientific data (Baur 1993). It was 
suggested at the 1993 PBSG meeting that Canada may be in non-compliance 
with parts of the International Agreement. There was some discussion of 
whether Canada is using sound conservation practices in managing polar 
bears since some populations are thought to be over-harvested. Canada 
noted, however, that their management system allows for the reduction 
of quotas in response to a decline resulting from over-hunting. The NWT 
is currently working with local communities to reduce quotas in those 
jurisdictions where recent population data suggests an over-harvest.
    It was also discussed that the selling of hides resulting from 
polar bears killed in self-defense violates Article II of the 
International Agreement. Canada noted that all polar bears killed in 
defense of life are subtracted from the local quota so the sale is not 
a conservation threat (PBSG 1995).
4. Prohibition on the Use of Aircraft and Large Motorized Vessels
    Article IV of the International Agreement prohibits the use of 
``aircraft and large motorized vessels for the purpose of taking polar 
bears * * * except where the application of such prohibition would be 
inconsistent with domestic laws.''
    It is illegal in Canada to hunt polar bears from aircraft for 
either sport or local hunting. Aboriginal guides and sport hunters must 
conduct their hunt by dog team or on foot. (It should be noted that 
non-sport hunters may travel and hunt polar bears by 3-wheel ATV (all-
terrain vehicles), snowmobile, and boats under 15 meters. There was 
some discussion, but no resolution, at the 1993 PBSG meeting on whether 
the extensive use of snowmobiles in Canada and Alaska to hunt polar 
bears by native peoples complied with the International Agreement (PBSG 
1995). However, Mr. Curtis Bohlen clarified that snowmobiles were 
normally used by natives in Canada and Alaska and were considered 
traditional (pers. comm. 1995).) Access to the communities is by air 
only, so sport hunters must fly to reach their destinations. Aircraft, 
snow machines, and boats are sometimes used to transport equipment, 
hunters, and dogs to base camps which can be a great distance from the 
community. The hunt continues from the base camp by dog team.
    Canada does not interpret transportation by air or other motorized 
vehicle to a place where the hunt begins as a violation of Article IV 
of the International Agreement (GNWT). The Service agrees with this 
interpretation. Baur (1993) explained that Article IV of the 
International Agreement ``followed strong opinion that the hunting of 
polar bears with aircraft should be stopped, and, furthermore, that the 
prohibition against the use of large motorized vessels for taking was 
directed at the practice, which was particularly common in the 
Spitsbergen area, of hunting bears from vessels of 100 feet or 
longer.''
5. The Prohibition on Taking Cubs and Females With Cubs
    At the 1973 Conference, the Parties to the International Agreement 
adopted a non-binding ``Resolution on Special Protection Measures'' to 
take steps to: (a) Provide a complete ban on the hunting of female 
polar bears with cubs and their cubs and (b) prohibit the hunting of 
polar bears in denning areas during periods when bears are moving into 
denning areas or are in dens. In adopting this resolution, the Parties 
recognized the low reproductive rate of polar bears and suggested that 
the measures ``are generally accepted by knowledgeable scientists'' to 
be ``sound conservation practices'' within the meaning of Article II. 
While the prohibitions in the Resolution are considered to be important 
to the signatory nations, they are not terms of the International 
Agreement itself and are not legally binding (Baur 1993). At the 1993 
PBSG meeting the resolution was discussed but no agreement was reached 
over the interpretation of whether females with their cubs and cubs are 
specially protected under the Agreement (PBSG 1995).
    Although the Service recognizes that the resolution is not binding, 
the 1994 Amendments require the Service to make a finding that Canada's 
management program is consistent with the purposes of the International 
Agreement. The resolution clearly falls within the purposes of sound 
conservation practices of Article II. Thus, the Service proposes to 
approve only populations where provisions are in place to protect 
females with cubs, their cubs, and bears in denning areas during 
periods when bears are moving into denning areas or are in dens.
    The Service proposes to find that the NWT meets these requirements 
as females with cubs-of-the-year and bears in dens are protected by 
Territorial regulations. In addition, females with yearlings and 
yearlings are protected, and, in some areas, females with 2-year-old 
cubs are also protected. However, the Service proposes not to approve 
the Southern Hudson Bay population that is shared with Ontario, since 
that province has no such protection in place.
    Importation of Pregnant or Nursing Animals. The MMPA has a more 
stringent requirement than the Resolution on Special Protection 
Measures of the International Agreement discussed above. Section 102(b) 
prohibits the import of any marine mammal, except under a permit for 
scientific research or enhancing the survival or recovery of a species 
or stock, if such marine mammal was ``(1) pregnant at the time of 
taking; (2) nursing at the time of taking, or less than eight months 
old, whichever occurs later; (3) * * *; (4) taken in a manner deemed 
inhumane by the Secretary.'' Number 4 was included to address the issue 
of whether the taking of a mother if she had cubs would be inhumane 
since the cubs probably would not be able to survive without her. These 
prohibitions were part of the law passed in 1972 and have been applied 
to all import permits. Since Congress did not specifically exclude 
polar bear import permits from the prohibition of 102(b), the Service 
has considered them in this notice.
    The Service has noted two timeframes when it might be difficult to 
ensure that these provisions are met. In viewing the life history of 
polar bears, during the month of October it would not be possible to 
know if the bear was pregnant. In the section on Reproduction and 
Survival above, information was presented that polar bears become 
implanted in late September and usually start building dens in late 
October and early November. In some part of the NWT the harvest season 
does not open until December 1, in which case any pregnant bears would 
be protected. But in other areas the harvest season starts October 1 
and pregnant females would be available to be taken. Second, polar bear 
cubs nurse until they are approximately 2.0 to 2.5 years of age at 
which time they are about the same size as the mother. Polar bear cubs 
nearing the time when they are weaned would be difficult to identify.
    The Service looked at various options to ensure that the 
requirements of 

[[Page 36390]]
Section 102(b) are met prior to issuing a permit for the import of 
polar bear trophies taken in the NWT. The Service invites comments on 
the following options: (1) Have the NWT certify that at the time of 
take the bear was not pregnant, was not a nursing cub, and was not a 
mother with cubs based on information presented to the DRR officer; (2) 
condition the import permit that the permittee must certify at the time 
of import that at the time of take a female bear was not pregnant or a 
mother with cubs, and a young bear was not nursing; and/or (3) include 
issuance criteria that permits would not be issued for female bears 
taken during the month of October and bears taken while in family 
groups. At this time, the Service prefers the first option and so has 
proposed language for it. However, the Service invites comments on the 
three options presented. It should be noted that this provision applies 
to all polar bear to be imported, including ones taken prior to the 
1994 Amendments.
C. Scientifically Sound Quotas and Maintenance of Sustainable 
Population Levels

    The NWT manages polar bear with a quota system based on inventory 
studies, sex ratio of the harvest, and population modeling using the 
best available scientific information. The rationale of the polar bear 
management program is that the human caused kill (e.g., harvest, 
defense, or incidental kills) must remain within the sustainable yield, 
with the anticipation of a slow increase in number for any population. 
Each population is unique in terms of both ecology and management 
issues, and baseline information ranges from very good in some areas to 
less developed in others. But overall, polar bear populations in Canada 
are considered to be healthy (GNWT).
    Congressman Jack Fields stated in the House of Representatives 
floor debate on the 1994 Amendments that ``. . . it is not the intent 
of the language that the Secretary [of the Interior] attempt to impose 
polar bear management policy or practices on Canada through the 
imposition of any polar bear import criteria'' (140 Cong. Rec. H2725, 
April 26, 1994). The Service agrees that the intent of the Amendments 
was not to change Canada's management program, but to ensure ``* * * 
sport hunting of polar bears does not adversely affect the 
sustainability of the country's polar bear populations and that it does 
not have a detrimental effect on maintaining those populations 
throughout their range'' (Committee Report, H.R. Rep. No. 439, 103d 
Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1994)).
    The Service found in reviewing the information that Canada has a 
dynamic management program for polar bears which includes research, 
monitoring programs, enforcement, and coordination with other nations. 
The NWT administers the bulk of the program through a system of co-
management that involves the indigenous people. The NWT polar bear 
program has been shown to be an evolving program in the interest of 
conserving polar bear populations.
1. Proposed Finding
    Based on information as summarized in this Federal Register notice, 
the Service proposes to find that the Northwest Territories in Canada 
has a sport-hunting program that is based on scientifically sound 
quotas ensuring the maintenance of the affected population stock at a 
sustainable level for all populations, provided the status of each 
population is maintained as stable or increasing for the last harvest 
season and the average of the three preceding harvest seasons, and a 
joint management agreement(s) is in place that ensures the 
sustainability of the total harvest in a shared population.
    The Service proposes to approve the following populations in the 
NWT where current data show that the status of the population has been 
maintained as stable or increasing for the last harvest season and the 
average of the three preceding seasons: Southern Beaufort Sea, Northern 
Beaufort Sea, Viscount Melville Sound, Gulf of Boothia, M'Clintock 
Channel, and Western Hudson Bay.
    The Service proposes not to approve populations where current data 
show that the take for the last harvest season and the average of the 
three preceding seasons has exceeded the quota to such extent that 
Canada classifies the status of the population as declining. Currently, 
this includes the two populations with uncertain data, Parry Channel/
Baffin Bay and Foxe Basin.
    The Service also proposes not to approve the following populations 
that are shared by the NWT with Greenland, Quebec, Ontario, or 
Newfoundland and Labrador: Queen Elizabeth Island, Parry Channel/Baffin 
Bay, Foxe Basin, Davis Strait, and Southern Hudson Bay. The Service 
understands that currently there are no management agreements between 
the NWT and Greenland or the listed Provinces to ensure that the total 
harvest in these populations are sustainable.
    The Service is concerned that U.S. residents may continue to take 
polar bears in populations that have not been approved if the proposal 
is adopted. Although the GNWT has told the Service that the two 
populations with uncertain data (Parry Channel/Baffin Bay and Foxe 
Basin) have ongoing research they believe will support a finding that 
the current quota ensure sustainable populations, the Service notes 
that any person who hunts in a non-approved population is taking a risk 
that he/she may never be able to legally import the polar bear into the 
United States. If a U.S. resident hunts a polar bear in a population 
that is not approved for import, the Service proposes to issue an 
import permit only if the Service finds, based on new data from the 
NWT, that the total harvest for that harvest season and the average of 
the three preceding harvest seasons was sustainable for the affected 
population and a management agreement(s) was in place with Greenland 
and/or a province(s) that shares the population with the NWT.
2. Inventory
    It is difficult and expensive to determine population trends for 
polar bears since they are distributed over vast areas in the Arctic 
environment. A minimum of 3 to 5 years of research is needed to gain a 
reliable population estimate, and studies need to continue for 10 to 20 
years to detect significant changes (Prestrud and Stirling 1995). Each 
population in the NWT is assessed by a periodic population inventory 
done on a rotational basis. The time required to sequentially assess 
all 12 populations and then begin the process over again is projected 
to be 20 years.
    The first part of the inventory process identifies the geographic 
boundaries of each population. Boundaries, initially proposed based on 
land forms, sea ice dynamics, and reconnaissance surveys, have been 
refined by scientific research data on the movements of individual 
bears through the use of mark-recapture, mark-kill data from the 
harvest, radio tracking, and satellite telemetry. Research on 
population boundaries is ongoing.
    The second part of the inventory process is to estimate the size of 
a population. The basic principle behind the use of mark-recapture and 
mark-kill data in wildlife management is that given a known number of 
identifiable animals, the rate at which those animals are recaptured or 
killed provides an assessment as to the size of the population. By 
regulation, lip tatoos or ear tags, applied to polar bears in the 
course of population inventories, must be submitted to the DRR at the 
time of harvest of the bear. In addition, the sex and age structure of 
the harvest is monitored. Changes in the sex and age 

[[Page 36391]]
of the harvest over time provide insight into whether the population 
may be increasing or declining. Should mark-kill data, information from 
the monitoring program, or reports from local hunters indicate a 
problem with a particular population, the period between assessments 
could be shortened depending on the availability of research resources.
    Data from ongoing research is incorporated into management 
practices as appropriate. The results of studies on which management of 
this species is based have been published in reports, conference 
proceedings, and refereed scientific journals.
3. Calculation of Sustainable Harvest
    The GNWT manages polar bears under the assumption that the polar 
bear populations are experiencing maximal (e.g. no density effects) 
recruitment and survival rates. The estimated sustainable rate of 
harvest is then the maximum sustainable harvest.
    Based on a model developed cooperatively between all jurisdictions 
managing polar bears, it was demonstrated that the two most critical 
parameters for estimating sustainable harvest are population numbers 
and adult female survival rate (Taylor et al. 1987a). As a result of 
sampling biases in the available data which affected the value of the 
analysis, the detailed analysis was simplified to contain only the most 
important features. One such simplification involved the use of pooled 
best estimates for vital rates for all Canadian polar bear populations. 
Using the pooled best estimates for vital rates, the polar bear harvest 
model indicated that the sustainable harvest (H) of a population could 
be estimated as:

H=N (0.015/Pf),

where N is the total number of individuals in the population and 
Pf is the proportion of females in the harvest measured directly 
from the harvest returns. The formula can also be modified for 
populations with different renewal rates and, if new information 
becomes available, on birth and death rates (GNWT).
    Table 3 provides vital information on each population including the 
population estimate, the total kill (excluding natural deaths), 
percentage of females killed, and the calculated sustainable harvest 
for the last harvest season and averaged over the last three and five 
seasons. Based on this information, the status of the population is 
designated as increasing, stable, or decreasing, represented by the 
symbols ``+'', ``O'', ``-''. The population status is expressed simply 
as the difference between the calculated sustainable harvest and the 
kill. For example, the calculated sustainable harvest for the Southern 
Beaufort Sea 1993/94 harvest season was 81.1. Since the total kill was 
64, the harvest of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea did not 
exceed the sustainable yield. Therefore, the population had the 
potential to increase. In contrast, the Foxe Basin (FB) kill exceeded 
the sustainable harvest, thus the population status is represented as 
declining. It should be noted that the status as outlined in the table 
allows for a difference of up to 3 bears between the kill and the 
calculated sustainable harvest. Thus, in the Gulf of Boothia, where the 
harvest in the 1993/94 season exceeded the quota by 2.3 bears, the 
status is considered to be stable.

                Table 3.--Population Status for Canadian Polar Bear Populations Incorporating Harvest Statistics From 1989/90 to 1993/94                
   [The populations are identified as follows: Southern Beaufort Sea (SB), Northern Beaufort Sea (NB), Viscount Melville (VM), Queen Elizabeth Islands  
 (QE), Parry Channel (PC), Baffin Bay (BB), Gulf of Boothia (GB), M'Clintock Channel (MC), Foxe Basin (FB), Davis Strait (DS), Western Hudson Bay (WH), 
and Southern Hudson Bay (SH). The percent females (%) statistic \1\ does not include bears of unknown sex except for Labrador (1991/92 and 1992/
    93) and Greenland (all 5 years). Harvest statistics include all reported human-caused mortality of polar bears. Natural deaths are not included.]   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               5-year average (1989/90-     3-year average (1991/92-      Current year (1993/94)                        
                                                       1993/94)                     1993/94)          -----------------------------                     
      Pop.\2\          Pop.    Reliability* ----------------------------------------------------------                               Population status**
                     estimate    and S.E.         Kill       Sustainable       Kill       Sustainable       Kill       Sustainable      (5yr/3yr/1yr)   
                                               (%)   harvest \3\    (%)   harvest \3\    (%)   harvest \3\                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB................   \6\ 1800  Good........     60.4 (39.6)        68.2      66.0 (39.5)        68.4        64 (32.2)        81.1   +/+/+               
NB................       1200  Good........     32.2 (49.4)        36.4      30.0 (45.5)        39.6        16 (50.0)        36.0   +/+/+               
VM \4\............        230  Good........      5.2 (45.8)         1.2       2.0 (83.3)         0.7         2 (50.0)         1.1   -/0/0               
QE................        200  Poor........     10.6 (32.1)         9.0       9.7 (24.1)         9.0        11 (29.3)         9.0   0/0/0               
PC-BB.............   \6\ 2470  Fair........    197.0 (30.7)       111.3     199.3 (31.5)       111.3       200 (31.9)       111.3   -/-/- (Data         
                                                                                                                                     uncertain)         
GB................        900  Poor........     37.8 (40.4)        33.4      38.7 (36.5)        37.0        36 (40.0)        33.7   -/0/0               
MC................        700  Poor........     30.4 (40.3)        26.1      27.3 (33.7)        31.2        24 (33.3)        31.5   -/+/+               
FB \5\............       2020  Good........    128.6 (40.8)        74.3     125.0 (41.7)        72.7       100 (48.5)        62.5   -/-/-               
DS................   \6\ 1400  Fair........     55.0 (41.6)        50.5      58.0 (38.2)        55.0        58 (36.2)        58.0   -/0/0               
WH................       1200  Good........     44.8 (32.1)        54.1      41.3 (27.6)        54.1        32 (40.6)        44.3   +/+/+               
SH................       1000  Fair........     59.0 (32.5)        45.0      51.0 (36.2)        41.4        45 (33.3)        45.0   -/-/0               
                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Total \6\........      13120  ............           661.0       509.5            648.3       520.4              588       513.5   ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Good: Minimum capture bias, acceptable precision; Fair: Capture bias problems, precision uncertain; Poor: Considerable uncertainty, bias and/or few    
  data.                                                                                                                                                 
**A difference of up to 3 bears between the kill and sustainable harvest statistics was considered to be no change in status. ( - = decrease 0 = no     
  change + = increase)                                                                                                                                  
Notes:                                                                                                                                                  
\1\ The percent of killed bears that are females is not regulated by law in all populations, but rather % Females is specified as a target in many of   
  the Local Management Agreements.                                                                                                                      
\2\ Local Management Agreements now exist for all populations except QE. These agreements are reviewed periodically as new information becomes          
  available.                                                                                                                                            
\3\ Except for the VM population, the sustainable harvest is based on the sex ratio of the harvest, the population estimate (N) for the area and the    
  estimated rates of birth and death (Taylor et al. 1987):                                                                                              
Sustainable Harvest = (N x 0.015) Proportion of Harvest that were Females.                                                                              
Unpublished modelling indicates a sex ratio of 2 males to 1 female is sustainable, although the mean age and abundance of males will be reduced at      
  maximum sustainable yield. Harvest data (Lee and Taylor, in press) indicates that the harvest is typically selective for males.                       

[[Page 36392]]
                                                                                                                                                        
\4\ The rate of sustained yield of the VM population is one sixth that of the other populations because of lower cub and yearling survival, and lower   
  recruitment. The projected proportion of the harvest that are females is 15% based on the intention to take only males. A 5-year voluntary moratorium 
  on harvesting bears in the VM population began in 1994/95.                                                                                            
\5\ Communities that harvest from the FB population have agreed to a phased reduction in quota. The final harvest level will be 91 bears or the         
  sustainable yield as determined by subsequent population estimates by 1997.                                                                           
\6\ Totals refer to the sum of the all populations within or shared with Canada.                                                                        


    Polar bears are a long-lived and late maturing species that have a 
low annual recruitment rate. Their life history strategy is a reliance 
on a constantly high adult survival rate and stable recruitment. 
Consequently polar bears are particularly vulnerable to over-harvest. 
Conservation management and comparisons with other long-lived species 
suggest that noncompensatory harvest models are most appropriate for 
polar bears (Taylor et al. 1987).
    A common technique in wildlife management is to increase harvest of 
males as a means of increasing sustainable yield and conserving the 
reproduction potential of the population. Specific modeling has shown 
that the sex ratio of the polar bear harvest is a critical factor in 
calculating the sustainable yield of polar bear populations (Lee et al. 
1994). A selective harvest quota based on a harvest ratio of two males 
to one female can be 50 percent higher than an unselective one (GNWT). 
Mating in bears is promiscuous and recruitment is primarily a function 
of the number of adult females (Taylor et al. 1987).
    When the sex-selective harvest model was presented at the 1993 PBSG 
meeting, there were concerns raised. One was the difficulty of 
accounting for compensation in the model if more females were taken. 
Also, there was concern that if the population model was incorrect or 
if ecological conditions changed substantially, there would be a delay 
of many years before managers would realize that the predictions of the 
model were incorrect. Some felt this delay was too high a risk for use 
as a management tool (PBSG 1995). The NWT's DRR is aware of the 
concerns and is currently conducting a comprehensive risk analysis to 
consider all sources of uncertainty. It will be used to examine the 
inventory rotation period and the current standards for precision in 
the estimates of population size. In addition, they continue to monitor 
information on number, sex, and age of most polar bears harvested. Any 
over-harvest or significant change in the population due to natural 
ecological reasons likely would be detected. In addition, local hunters 
are familiar with the relative abundance of polar bears in their areas 
and would notice significant increasing or decreasing trends in polar 
bear numbers.
    Since the population quota is based, in part, on the sex ratio of 
the harvest, Local Management Agreements have been developed with the 
intention to limit the female kill by prescribing a harvest sex ratio 
of two males for each female. Some communities have the sex ratio as a 
target and others have it as a regulation. For both situations, the 
kill of female polar bears has exceeded the annual sustainable yield in 
some communities in some years. The DRR is seeking resolution to this 
problem including the development of conservation education materials 
in an effort to reduce take of females due to misidentification of sex. 
A booklet on how to distinguish between males and females was revised 
to incorporate suggestions from hunters, and posters were produced to 
encourage hunters to select for males. In addition, a revised one-tag 
system referred to as the ``Flexible Quota Option'' has been developed 
by the DRR, based on the number of female bears that can be taken 
annually. This system requires adoption into regulation prior to 
implementation (GNWT).
    Little is known about density-dependent population regulation in 
bears, including polar bears (Taylor et al. 1994). The current data are 
insufficient to determine if the mechanism is mainly nutritional, 
mainly social, or a combination of social and nutritional. To study 
density effects on polar bears would be a long term proposition and 
very expensive due to the slow growth rates, high environmental 
variability, and behavioral plasticity of the species. The NWT has 
placed its emphasis on conservation rather than maximization of yield. 
Their intention is to ensure the conservation of existing stocks with 
good data and management before doing more experimental work. They 
believe the need for information on density effects will increase as 
populations slowly increase under the current management system. They 
anticipate that their periodic inventory and subsequent management 
changes will provide information on how polar bear populations respond 
to various density levels over the long term (GNWT).
4. Quota
    The recorded annual kill of polar bears in Canada tripled during 
the 1960's. The size of the unrecorded harvest is unknown. In 1968 when 
the NWT started to set quotas, the size of polar bear populations on 
which to base sustainable quotas was largely unknown. Quotas were 
introduced on an interim basis, based on previous harvest records for 
each community. After the late 1970's, quotas were increased on the 
basis of new scientific information for each population (Prestrud and 
Stirling 1995). Quotas continue to undergo adjustments based on new 
information.
    Presently, the calculated sustainable harvest for each population 
represents the population quota. Therefore, the quota allocated is 
specific to each population. A quota allocated for one population 
cannot be used in another population. Quotas are not carried over from 
one year to the next. Typically, the population quotas and a summary of 
previous years' harvest data for each population is presented on an 
annual basis to the PBTC. A summary of the population status for 
Canadian polar bear populations incorporating harvest statistics is 
provided in Table 3. The reliability and standard error of each 
population estimate are expressed in qualitative (i.e., Good, Fair, or 
Poor) rather than quantitative terms because of bias in the population 
estimate as a result of sampling problems. The DRR expects that 
quantitative terms will be used in future status reports as population 
inventories are completed.
    All human caused mortality is subtracted from the quota, including 
polar bears killed in sport hunts, taken in defense of life or 
property, or shot illegally, as well as accidental deaths from research 
studies. Occasionally the quota is exceeded due to unexpected defense 
kills, mistakes, or illegal kills. Typically an over-harvest is 
deducted from the following year's quota as a correction. Any tags 
identified for a sport hunt cannot be re-issued later if the hunter 
does not harvest a polar bear. Every unused tag from a sport hunt 
reduces the impact of the harvest on the affected polar bear 
population. To date, sport hunting accounts for about 10 to 15 percent 
of the annual quota, with about 80 to 90 percent of the quota tags 
being used as a result of a successful hunt (GNWT). 

[[Page 36393]]

5. Status of Populations the Service Proposes to Approve
    Southern Beaufort Sea (SB). The estimated population is 1,800 and 
is considered to be conservative. Mark-recapture and studies of 
movements using telemetry, conducted semi-continuously since the late 
1960's in Alaska and the early 1970's in Canada, have determined the 
boundaries of this population. The population data is rated as good. 
Table 3 shows the status of the population as increasing based on the 
5-year and 3-year average of harvests and the 1993/94 harvest. Of the 
64 bears taken in last year's harvest, 32.2 percent were females. The 
population estimate is currently under review. Guiding of sport hunts 
occurs on a limited basis in the Canadian portion of the population. 
The number of sport hunts for the last two seasons was 6 and 1, 
respectively (GNWT).
    This population is shared between the jurisdictions of the United 
States (Alaska) and Canada (NWT and Yukon Territory). In Alaska polar 
bears are only taken for subsistence and handicraft purposes by Alaska 
Natives. Harvest of bears on either side of the international border 
affect the entire population. It should be noted that the Beaufort Sea 
boundary remains an issue of dispute between the United States and 
Canada, as noted in the results of the Ottawa Summit. The United States 
views the Canadian jurisdiction to end at the equidistant line and no 
bears should be taken west of that line. To date, no international 
agreements between governments on the management of specific 
populations of polar bears have been signed. However, in January 1988, 
a management agreement for polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea was 
signed by representatives of the Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC) in the 
Northwest Territories and the Fish and Game Management Committee of the 
North Slope Borough (NSB) in Alaska (USFWS 1995). Although the 
agreement is not legally binding on the Canadian or U.S. Government, it 
is signed by both groups and continues to be successful overall 
(Prestrud and Stirling 1995). The agreement is a precedent-setting 
example of how Native groups can successfully manage traditional 
harvest practices through self-regulation. The agreement has management 
restrictions that are consistent with the International Agreement, and 
that are in some part more stringent than the MMPA. The agreement, 
among other things, calls for establishing harvest limits based on the 
best available scientific evidence; prohibition on the use of large 
vessels or aircraft for hunting polar bears; protection of all bears in 
dens or constructing dens, pregnant females, cubs, and females with 
cubs; a management system to regulate the number of polar bears 
harvested and to ensure compliance with harvest limit allocations; a 
reporting system to collect critical information from harvested polar 
bear; and protection of important polar bear habitat.
    The initial annual harvest quota for the Southern Beaufort Sea 
population was set at 38 bears each in Canada and Alaska. The hunting 
season in the NWT area is December 1 to May 31, timing limitations 
which protect pregnant females prior to denning. In Alaska the season 
for harvest by Alaska Natives is September 1 to May 31, a timing that 
does not contain the same protection. However, both Parties have agreed 
that all bears in dens or constructing dens are protected and family 
groups made up of females and cubs-of-the-year or yearlings are 
protected. During the first harvest (1988/89) under the management 
agreement take in Alaska exceeded the guidelines by 20, while the 
harvest in Canada was below the allocation. However, the harvest during 
the next three seasons were less than allocation guidelines in both 
Alaska and Canada. It is believed that the reduced take by the second 
harvest season was due to extensive efforts to distribute information 
on the management agreement. In addition, there has been a general 
trend in Alaska to harvest fewer family groups (USFWS 1995).
    The population is also shared by the Yukon Territory where the 
legal basis for regulating polar bears is the Wildlife Act, 1981. 
Currently there are no residents of the Yukon harvesting polar bears as 
the people all moved to the NWT. The Yukon wishes to retain its 
management system in case the aboriginals return to the Yukon coast and 
harvest polar bears. There is a total quota of six tags which is 
currently on loan and included in the NWT's quota.
    The Service proposes to approve the Southern Beaufort Sea 
population with the provisions that: (1) No bears be taken by sport 
hunting west of the equidistant line of the Beaufort Sea; (2) the 
management agreement for polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea 
between the IGC and NSB remains in effect; and (3) the Yukon Territory 
quota remains with the NWT or a joint management agreement is in place 
with scientifically sound quotas.
    Northern Beaufort Sea (NB). The population estimate of 1,200 polar 
bears is believed to be unbiased and may be conservative. Mark-
recapture and studies of movements using telemetry have been conducted 
at intervals since the early 1970's. Boundaries of the population have 
been determined using telemetry and recovery of tagged bears. An 
ongoing study is examining the possibility that this population extends 
further north than the data previously indicated. The population data 
is rated as good. Table 3 shows the status of the population as 
increasing based on the 5-year and 3-year average of harvests and the 
1993/94 harvest. Of the 16 bears taken in last year's harvest, 50 
percent were females. Guiding of sport hunters occurs on a limited 
basis. Only 2 to 3 sport hunts occurred in the last two years.
    Viscount Melville Sound (VM). The population estimate of 230 polar 
bears is believed to be unbiased. A 5-year mark-recapture and telemetry 
study of movements and population size was completed in 1992. 
Boundaries of the population were based on observed movements of female 
polar bears. In the mid-1970's when the original quotas were allocated, 
this population was thought to be large and productive. This area, 
however, has poor seal habitat and the productivity of polar bears was 
lower than expected. Harvesting polar bears at the initial quota levels 
caused the number of bears in the population to drop, especially males. 
Recent research has shown this population to have an annual recruitment 
rate less than previously believed. Residents of this area have agreed 
to a moratorium on polar bear hunting in this population until the year 
2000. The placement of this moratorium on hunting is an example of how 
Canada is effectively administering its polar bear program based on 
current scientific information. It is anticipated that when the data 
shows that harvest activities can resume, there will be an annual quota 
of 4 males.
    Gulf of Boothia (GB). Currently this population is estimated at 900 
animals. A population estimate of 333 polar bears was derived from a 
limited research program of mark and recapture restricted to the 
western coastal areas. It was increased to 900 based on the information 
from local Inuit hunters and an estimate of bears in the central and 
eastern portions of the area that had not been sampled, but was 
collaborated by studies in the adjoining populations. Although the 900 
animal estimate has no statistical level of precision, managers believe 
it to be more accurate than the previous estimate. The population data 
are limited and rated as poor. The boundaries are supported by studies 
conducted in adjacent areas. The status of the population was stable at 
the 3-year average harvests and the 

[[Page 36394]]
1993/94 harvest. Of the 36 bears taken in last year's harvest, 40 
percent were females (Table 3). More comprehensive research is planned 
for this population within the next 5 years, including reassessment of 
the size of the population. The number of sport hunts guided for the 
last two seasons was 10 and 5, respectively.
    M'Clintock Channel (MC). A 6-year mark-capture population study was 
conducted in the mid-1970's. The population was estimated to be 900 
polar bears. Local hunters advised that 700 might be a more accurate 
estimate. Under a Local Management Agreement between Inuit communities 
that share this population, the harvest quota for this area has been 
revised to levels expected to achieve slow growth based on the more 
conservative population estimate of 700 polar bears. The boundaries are 
supported by recoveries of tagged bears and movements documented by 
telemetry in adjacent areas. Table 3 shows the status of the population 
as increasing based on the 3-year average and the 1993/94 harvest. Of 
the 24 bears taken in last year's harvest, 33 percent were females.
    Western Hudson Bay (WH). The population estimate of 1,200 is 
believed to be conservative as a portion of the southern range has not 
been included in the mark-recapture program. Research programs on the 
distribution and abundance of the population have been conducted since 
the late 1960's, with 80 percent of the adult population marked. Mark-
recapture studies and return of tags from bears killed by Inuit hunters 
have provided extensive records. The population data is rated as good. 
Table 3 shows the status of the population as increasing based on the 
5-year and 3-year average of harvests and the 1993/94 harvest. Of the 
32 bears taken in last year's harvest, 40.6 percent were females. 
During the open-water season, this population appears to be 
geographically segregated, although it is intermixed with the eastern 
Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin populations during the ice covered months.
    The Western Hudson Bay population is shared with Manitoba, where 
polar bears are listed as a protected species under the Wildlife Act of 
1991. There is no open hunting season and polar bears cannot legally be 
hunted at any time of the year by anyone. To hunt polar bears, 
including hunting by Treaty Indians, would require a permit from the 
Minister and no such permits are currently being issued. Under the 
terms of a Local Management Agreement, Manitoba is allocated a quota of 
27 tags out of 55 for the Western Hudson Bay population. Eight tags are 
held in reserve by Manitoba for the control program and accidental 
deaths associated with the research program. The remaining 19 are 
currently on loan and included in the NWT total quota (GNWT). This does 
not mean that there is a total ban on hunting polar bears in the 
future. The Minister can authorize the taking of bear for any purpose 
``not contrary to public interest.'' The current policy is that no 
person will be granted a permit to hunt polar bear until it is 
established there is a harvestable surplus over conservation needs of 
the population that takes into account political and scientific 
concerns (Calvert et al. 1995).
    The Service proposes to approve this population with the provision 
that a management agreement between the NWT and Manitoba is in effect 
with scientifically sound quotas to ensure the total harvest in this 
population is sustainable.
6. Status of Shared Populations the Service Proposes Not To Approve
    All of the following populations are shared with either Greenland 
or another Canadian province or both, and do not have formal agreements 
as to how the portion of the population outside the NWT will be 
managed. Management agreements drafted in 1994 for the Davis Strait, 
Foxe Basin, and Southern Hudson Bay populations attributed to NWT 
communities the existing, unchanged harvest levels and documented for 
Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Greenland the current 
known annual harvest. Following completion of comprehensive population 
studies, including both scientific and traditional knowledge, the 
sustainable harvest of each population will be estimated and allocated 
fairly between all user groups through joint negotiations. These joint 
management negotiations are ongoing. The next PBTC meeting will be in 
Quebec partly to facilitate joint management discussions. Canada and 
Greenland are currently conducting joint research to confirm shared 
population boundaries and population estimates. Once this joint 
research report is completed, the two countries have agreed to move 
ahead with negotiations on developing joint management agreements 
(GNWT).
    Queen Elizabeth Island (QE). The population is estimated at 200. 
Current information is that there are few polar bears in this remote 
area. The reliability of the data is poor. A likely scenario is that 
this area will eventually be managed as a sanctuary for polar bears. 
The status of the population was stable at the 5-year and 3-year 
average of harvests and the 1993/94 harvest. Of the 11 bears taken in 
last year's harvest, 29.3 percent were females. Only one sport hunt 
occurred during each of the past two seasons. A Local Management 
Agreement has not been finalized for this population. In addition, this 
population is shared with Greenland although the movement of polar 
bears between the NWT and Greenland is thought to be small in this 
population (see Parry Channel/Baffin Bay below).
    Parry Channel (PC) and Baffin Bay (BB). This area is being 
considered as a unit as it is unclear what fraction of the Greenland 
harvest was from either Parry Channel or Baffin Bay populations. 
Information on the amount of exchange between these populations in 
Canada and Greenland is important for management since polar bears are 
harvested by communities in both countries. The current population 
estimate of 2,470 polar bears is considered preliminary and 
conservative. It was obtained by pooling the previous estimates for 
Lancaster Sound (1,657, increased to 2,000, based on sampling bias in 
the original studies that could have resulted in an underestimate of 
the population) and NE Baffin (470) populations with the assumption 
that a distinct population for west Greenland would not be found. The 
population data is rated as fair. The status of the population as shown 
in Table 3 is decreasing for the 5-year and 3-year average of harvests 
and the 1993/94 harvest. Last season's harvest was 200 bears (31.9 
percent females). Most sport hunting has occurred in Parry Channel, 28 
in 1993/94 harvest season and 24 in 1992/93. Limited guided sport hunts 
of 5 and 3 occurred in Baffin Bay during the same seasons (GNWT).
    According to Born (1995) there is little information available on 
the take of polar bears in Greenland. There is no quota for harvest of 
polar bears in Greenland. Regulations prohibit the use of vehicles for 
the hunt and stipulate that hunters must be citizens of Greenland and 
hunt or fish full time. As of January 1, 1993, Greenland residents are 
required to obtain special permits to hunt polar bear. The reporting of 
take is voluntary, and the system of reporting has not worked reliably 
for many years. Greenland needs to obtain information on the number and 
sex ratio of bears taken in all areas and number of animals in the 
populations to establish a sustainable harvest level of polar bears. 
There is an ongoing Canadian-Greenland joint study to obtain data to 
delineate the range and number of bears in the shared populations. A 
summary of results of a polar bear survey suggests a harvest of 40 to 
60 bears each year in 

[[Page 36395]]
West Greenland, from the population shared with Canada (PBSG 1995). 
Recent satellite telemetry data indicates four populations: a western 
population, Baffin Bay, Jones Sound-Norwegian Bay, and Kane Basin. The 
final analysis and determination of population status will occur in the 
summer of 1995 after the collection of the last movement data. A re-
inventory of population numbers is ongoing. Data collection should be 
finalized in Baffin Bay by the Fall of 1995 and in Parry Channel by 
1997. Canada is not recommending any management action until the study 
is completed.
    Foxe Basin (FB). An 8-year mark-recapture and telemetry study of 
movements and population size was concluded in 1992. The population 
estimate of 2,020 is believed to be accurate as the marking effort 
included the entire area. Polar bears were concentrated on the 
Southampton Island and Wager Bay areas during the ice-free season, but 
significant numbers of bears were found throughout the other islands 
and coastal areas. Because the previous harvest quotas are believed to 
have reduced the population from about 3,000 in the early 1970's to 
about 2,000 in 1991, the harvest quota is being incrementally reduced 
to levels that will permit recovery of this population. The reduction 
process is described in the NWT Local Management Agreements between the 
Inuit communities that share these polar bears. The population data are 
rated as good. The status of the population (Table 3) is shown as 
decreasing for the 5-year and 3-year average of harvests and the 1993/
94 harvest. Of the 100 bears taken in last year's harvest, 48.5 percent 
were females.
    The population is shared with Quebec where the legal bases for 
regulating polar bear are the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 
1983; the Order in Council 1 3234, 1971; and the James Bay 
International Agreement, 1978 (GNWT). Inuit and Indians are allowed to 
hunt polar bears from three different populations, based on the 
``guaranteed harvest'' levels determined for the James Bay Agreement, 
as long as the principle of conservation is respected (PBSG 1995). The 
guaranteed harvest levels are determined between the user groups and 
the Government of Quebec based on harvest records between 1976 and 
1980. The levels are set without knowledge of the size of the polar 
bear population and without consultation with other user groups that 
hunt polar bears from the three shared populations. (In fact, The Inuit 
from Quebec have declined to participate in a management agreement with 
the NWT as there is some confusion how a co-management agreement would 
mesh with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.) The harvest 
levels set are 22, 31, and 9 for populations shared in Southern Hudson 
Bay, Davis Strait, and Foxe Basin, respectively. The Inuit have agreed 
with the harvest levels, while negotiations are occurring with the 
Crees. If the ``guaranteed harvest'' is exceeded, which is uncommon, 
there is no penalty. The number and sex of polar bears in the harvest 
are monitored, with age determined on many of them. There has been, 
however, some concern expressed over the inconsistencies in harvest 
data. Quebec does not have legislation to protect female polar bears 
with cubs and bears in dens (GNWT), but the Inuit hunters and trappers 
in Northern Quebec have agreed to protect them (PBSG 1988).
    Davis Strait (DS). The population estimate is 1,400, and is based 
on field work conducted during the spring from 1976 through 1979. 
Traditional knowledge observations suggest that the population may have 
increased since 1979: (a) Hunters from Pangnirtung have reported larger 
numbers of bears in recent years and in 1994 took their entire quota in 
less than 2 days; (b) hunters from the Labrador Inuit Association have 
reported seeing an increased number of bears in the last several years; 
(c) hunters from Iqaluit report they have harvested the highest 
proportion of males of any settlement in the NWT due to high densities 
of bears encountered; and (d) hunters from Lake Harbour report a higher 
rate of encounters with polar bears in recent years. Observations made 
by biologists support the traditional knowledge reported by hunters: 
(a) during surveys conducted in the fall of 1992 and 1993, high 
densities of bears were found on the Cumberland Peninsula, Baffin 
Island; (b) the number of bears captured per hour of search time during 
1991-94 on the Labrador coast almost doubled from 1976-79; (c) during 
the above surveys conducted in the 1990's, a large proportion of old 
adult males were seen (such sightings would not occur in an over-
harvested population where the harvest was selective for males); and 
(d) satellite tracking data from 1991-94 indicate that a large 
proportion of the population is offshore in the pack ice during the 
spring and would not have been included in the capture and tagging as 
part of the 1980 population estimate. Population modeling indicates 
that the population would need to be at least 1,400 to sustain the 
present annual kill of 58 polar bear. The 1995 PBTC supported the 
revision of the population estimate to 1,400. Further work will be 
required to resolve the status of polar bears in this population. A 
joint resolution was signed by Quebec and NWT supporting a co-operative 
inventory of this population as a high priority. (Newfoundland and 
Labrador could not attend the meeting where that resolution was 
developed, but is supportive.) The population data is rated as fair. 
The status of the population (Table 3) is shown as stable for 3-year 
average of harvests and the 1993/94 harvest. Of the 58 bears in last 
year's harvest, 40.6 percent were females.
    The Davis Strait population is shared with Quebec, Newfoundland and 
Labrador, and Greenland. For a discussion of Quebec, see Foxe Basin 
above. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the legal basis for regulating 
polar bears is the Wildlife Act, 1970. The current hunting season is 
limited to residents of the Torngat Electoral District on the northern 
Labrador coast, with no distinction made between natives and non-
natives. To maintain consistency with the International Agreement, tags 
are issued through the Labrador Inuit Association, with unused tags 
being accounted for. Land claim negotiations that may affect how polar 
bears are managed in Newfoundland and Labrador are currently underway. 
In typical years Greenland harvests no polar bears from the Davis 
Strait population. In some years, however, ice is blown onto southern 
Greenland and, on the average, two bears are taken in Greenland. For 
additional discussion on Greenland's program, see Parry Channel/Baffin 
Bay above.
    Southern Hudson Bay (SH). The population estimate of 1,000 is 
considered conservative. It is based on a 3-year study mainly along the 
Ontario coastline of movements and population size using telemetry and 
mark-recapture. Since a portion of the eastern and western coastal 
areas was not included in the study area, the calculated estimate of 
763 bears was increased to 1,000. In addition, inshore areas were 
under-sampled because of difficulties in locating polar bears in the 
inland boreal forest. The study confirmed the population boundary along 
the Ontario coast during the ice-free season but showed the intermixing 
with the western Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin populations during the 
months when the bay is frozen over. The population data is rated as 
fair. Table 3 shows the status of the population as decreasing for the 
5-year and 3-year average harvests, but as stable for the 1993/94 
harvest. Of the 45 bears taken 

[[Page 36396]]
in last year's harvest, 33.3 percent were females.
    This population is shared with Quebec (see discussion under Foxe 
Basin), the NWT, and Ontario. In Ontario, polar bears are protected 
under the Game and Fish Act, 1980. Treaty Indians are allowed to hunt 
polar bears with an annual permissible kill of 30 animals (GNWT). 
Ontario has supported the adoption of guidelines for dividing the quota 
for polar bear populations shared with the NWT and Quebec, but there is 
no joint management agreement. There are no officers located in the 
villages where polar bears are hunted. At the 1994 PBTC meeting, it was 
reported that fewer kills are being reported by hunters, resulting in 
incomplete data. If the quota is exceeded, which is uncommon, hunters 
are encouraged to count the excess polar bears against the next year 
quota. Bears in dens and females with cubs are not specifically 
protected, but the take of such animals is believed to be rare.
7. Scientific Review
    The language of the MMPA Amendments requires that a scientific 
review of the impact of permits issued on the polar bear population 
stocks be undertaken periodically. The Service published a proposed 
rule in the Federal Register (60 FR 70) on January 3, 1995, that 
discussed the scientific review process and proposed permit procedures. 
The first scientific review of the impact of permits issued on the 
polar bear population stocks is to be undertaken within 2 years after 
enactment, that is by April 30, 1996. This review is to provide an 
opportunity for public comment and the final report will include a 
response to such public comment. The Director will not issue permits to 
allow for the import of polar bears taken in Canada after September 30, 
1996, if the Service determines that the issuance of permits is having 
a significant adverse impact on the polar bear population stocks in 
Canada. The Director may conduct an annual review of this 
determination. The review provides for the monitoring of the effects of 
permit issuance on Canada's polar bear population stocks and a means to 
guarantee the cessation of imports should there be an indication of an 
adverse impact on the sustainability of the Canadian population stocks. 
These reviews are to be based on the best scientific information 
available. If the Director does undertake a review, the Act requires 
that the review be completed by January 31 of the year in which the 
review was undertaken. The Director may not, however, refuse to issue 
permits solely on the basis that the review has not been completed by 
January 31.

D. CITES and Other International Agreements and Conventions

1. Proposed Finding
    The MMPA requires that the Service find that the export from Canada 
and subsequent import into the United States are consistent with CITES 
and other international agreements and conventions. Based on the 
discussion below, the Service proposes to find that the provision of 
CITES will be met for the export and import of polar bear trophies 
taken in Canada. The International Agreement was discussed previously. 
At this time, the Service is not aware of any other agreements or 
conventions that need to be considered.
2. CITES
    CITES is a treaty established to protect species impacted by 
international trade. Canada and the United States, along with 126 other 
countries, are Parties to CITES. The polar bear has been protected 
under Appendix II of CITES since 1975. Appendix II includes ``species 
which although not necessarily now threatened with extinction may 
become so unless trade in specimens of such species is subject to 
strict regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their 
survival'' (Article II of CITES). A CITES export permit must accompany 
each shipment from the country of origin. The export permit for dead 
specimens can be issued for any purpose as long as the scientific 
authority of the country of export determines that the shipment will 
not be detrimental to the survival of the species and the management 
authority of that country determines that the specimen was obtained 
legally.
    For the export of polar bear from Canada, control of the polar bear 
harvest is demonstrated by quotas enforced by legislation and co-
management agreements, and by development of a management plan. In the 
NWT, only the DRR Headquarters in Yellowknife and its Regional Offices 
can issue CITES permits for polar bears and polar bear products. A 
CITES permit for a polar bear product originating in the NWT may be 
issued from another Canadian province or territory only if the product 
was exported from the NWT with a Northwest Territories Wildlife Export 
Permit. This permit must be validated by Customs Canada upon export.
    For import into the United States, all wildlife and wildlife 
products requiring a permit under CITES and the MMPA must meet 
inspection and clearance requirements as outlined in regulation (50 CFR 
Part 14), including entry through one of the ports designated for 
wildlife import and completion of a Wildlife Declaration Form (3-177).

E. Illegal Trade in Bear Parts

1. Proposed Finding
    The Service proposes to find that the export and subsequent import 
of sport-hunted polar bear trophies to the United States would not be 
likely to contribute to the illegal trade in bear parts if the 
conditions proposed are adopted. The Service notes that this finding 
covers the illegal trade in parts of all species of bears. To ensure 
that the gall bladders of polar bears taken by U.S. hunters do not 
enter into trade, the Service proposes to condition any import permit 
that the permittee certify that the gall bladder was destroyed. To 
ensure that all polar bears that enter the United States can be 
identified as legally taken sport-hunted trophies and do not contribute 
to the illegal trade in polar bear parts, the Service proposes that the 
permittee make an appointment at least 72 hours prior to import with 
Service personnel at a designated port for wildlife to have a permanent 
tag affixed to the trophy upon import.
2. Trade in Gall Bladders
    There is a diversity of opinion on trade in polar bear gall 
bladders. Resolution 5 of the 1993 PBSG meeting recommended that each 
party consider restricting the traffic in polar bear gall bladders. 
This was done in recognition that worldwide trade in bear parts, 
particularly gall bladders, threatens the survival of several species 
of bear, and that the legal availability of gall bladders of any 
species of bear makes it impossible to control the illegal trade, 
encouraging further illegal take of all species of bears, including 
polar bear (PBSG 1995). Canada's PBTC endorsed the resolution which 
allows each party to make its own decision. The PBTC recommended the 
PBAC discuss the issue and consider recommending a ban on trade of gall 
bladders from all bear species. Although legally harvested bear gall 
bladders can be sold in the NWT, the GNWT is currently reviewing the 
practice. Between 1992 and 1994, NWT Export Permits were issued for 61 
polar bear gall bladders.
    The Service is unaware of any published source that documents a 
demand for polar bear gall bladders, but there are several anecdotal 
episodes that suggest they are not in commercial demand. Dr. Derek 
Melton, Director, Wildlife Management, DRR, NWT, wrote the Service that 
Judy Mills, co-

[[Page 36397]]
author of the World Wildlife Fund report on The Asian Trade in Bear 
Parts, verbally told him ``that gall bladders from polar bears were 
regarded as less desirable than those of terrestrial species, possibly 
because of the taste associated with their marine diet.'' Dr. Ed 
Espinoza, Chief of the Criminalistics Section of the National Fish and 
Wildlife Forensic Lab related that examination of polar bear gall 
bladders at the Lab revealed that polar bear gall bladders smell fishy, 
probably due to the high content of marine fatty acids and oils. He 
remembered Inuits from Kotzebue, Alaska, telling him that they are not 
able to get financial compensation for polar bear gall bladders because 
``they smell bad''. He also remembered a Canadian Wildlife Conservation 
Officer in Whitehorse telling him there were no interested Asian 
parties for the polar bear gall bladders because of the odor these 
galls had. On the other hand, in 1992, the first case of illegal sale 
of polar bear gall bladders was documented by U.S. law enforcement 
agents in Alaska (Schliebe et al. 1995). To ensure that the gall 
bladders of polar bears taken by U.S. hunters do not enter into trade, 
the Service proposes to condition any U.S. import permits for polar 
bears if this proposed rule is adopted. The condition would require the 
permittee to certify that the gall bladder, including its contents, 
from the polar bear proposed for import was destroyed.
3. Trade in Hides
    It was reported at the 1993 PBSG meeting that the fur market is 
currently glutted, resulting in low prices for pelts on the open 
market. The trade in polar bear hides is fairly flat, and the market in 
the United States is closed because of the MMPA. According to the 
Service's Division of Law Enforcement, an undercover operation in 
Alaska during 1991 and 1992 showed that a black market for polar bear 
hides existed in Alaska. Greenland assists in marketing polar bear 
pelts for local communities. In 1992 a total of 60 hides were purchased 
by the tannery. Thirty of these went to Denmark (PBSG 1995).
4. Canada
    There is some illegal trade in bear parts in Canada, but the extent 
is unknown. There are documented cases in the provinces, especially 
British Columbia. While trade in bear parts is now prohibited in 
British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Manitoba, it 
is still legal to sell bear parts in Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and 
the NWT. There may be some trade in bear parts from a province that 
does not allow trade by routing them through the provinces that still 
allow trade. There have been some questionable kills and some illegal 
kills of black bear to gain parts in the NWT. However, the trade in 
polar bear parts is not thought to be involved in any significant 
degree. GNWT wildlife officials have stated that distance and cost make 
polar bears inaccessible to southern poachers. Residents of the NWT 
consider the polar bear of cultural importance and worth more than just 
the economic value of its parts. Canada does not anticipate an increase 
in illegal activity or in the number of polar bears illegally killed as 
a result of allowing the export of sport-hunted trophies by U.S. 
citizens (GNWT).
5. Alaska
    The MMPA prohibits, with limited exceptions, the harvest and trade 
of polar bears and polar bear parts in the United States. It restricts 
the take of polar bears to any Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo who resides in 
Alaska and who dwells on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the 
Arctic Ocean provided such taking is not accomplished in a wasteful 
manner and is for subsistence purposes or is done for purposes of 
creating and selling authentic native articles of handicrafts and 
clothing.
    All polar bear hides and skulls taken as part of the Native 
subsistence harvest must be tagged within 30 days of harvesting the 
polar bear. These tags are provided by the Service, are numbered for 
accountability and of such a design, construction, and material so as 
to maximize their longevity and durability on the specified parts. 
Polar bear parts may only be tagged by Service personnel or authorized 
Service representatives (e.g., Native residents of the community). The 
skin and skull of an animal must accompany each other when presented 
for tagging. Tags are attached or applied to the skins and skulls in 
such a manner as to maximize their longevity and minimize adverse 
effect to the appearance of the specified parts which might result due 
to hindering the tanning or handicrafting of skins, or the 
handicrafting of skulls. Tags must remain affixed to the skin through 
the tanning process and until the skin has been severed into parts for 
crafting into handicrafts or for as long as practical during the 
handicrafting process. If the tag does come off of the specified part 
the person in possession of the part has 30 days to present the part 
and broken tag to the Service or the Service's local representative for 
retagging.
6. Proposed Tagging Requirement
    As previously described, the NWT tag applied to a polar bear hide 
is removed either at the time of tanning or upon export. Therefore, 
once imported, hides (raw and tanned), rugs, and mounts of Canadian 
sport-hunted polar bears are not distinguishable from untagged Alaskan 
polar bear hides which may have been illegally acquired or transported. 
In addition, there may be some polar bear hides and mounts taken in 
Canada and illegally imported into the United States prior to the 
Amendments.
    To ensure that all polar bears that enter the United States can be 
identified as legally taken sport-hunted trophies and not contribute to 
the illegal trade in polar bear parts, the Service proposes that they 
be marked with a one-time tag that is to remain on the trophy 
indefinitely. The tag would be similar in design to tags used for 
Alaskan polar bears taken in the Native subsistence harvest. The 
Service is currently working with the Canadian Wildlife Service and the 
Government of the NWT on the feasibility of permanently tagging the 
hide of all sport-hunted polar bear in Canada at the time of harvest. 
Developing such a cooperative program might include developing a tag 
which could withstand the cold climate of the NWT, the tanning process, 
and the taxidermy process; be unobtrusive on a polar bear mount or rug; 
and be visible for inspection, if necessary. The Service anticipates 
that the development and implementation of this program could take from 
6 months to 2 years.
    Until a procedure for permanently tagging sport-hunted polar bear 
hides at the time of harvest has been adopted, the Service proposes 
that a permanent tag be affixed to all sport-hunted polar bear trophies 
including raw (untanned) hides, tanned hides, and prepared rugs and 
mounts, upon import into the United States and that the skull of the 
polar bear, if separate from the remainder of the trophy, be 
permanently marked with the tag number of the accompanying polar bear 
hide. To ensure that all polar bear parts are permanently marked or 
tagged, the Service proposes that all sport-hunted polar bears must be 
imported through a Fish and Wildlife Service designated port during 
normal business hours with at least a 72-hour prior notice.
    The Service has experience with tagging programs for polar bear, 
walrus, and sea otter taken in the Native subsistence harvest in Alaska 
and for CITES regulated fur-bearing species, including brown bear, 
bobcat, river otter, and lynx. Based on this 

[[Page 36398]]
experience and discussions with professional taxidermists and tanners, 
the Service has learned that plastic tags are more durable than metal 
tags, less likely to break or rip from the hides, and less likely to 
damage tanning equipment. The Service considered the following factors 
when looking at tagging requirements: the condition of the trophy upon 
import (i.e., untanned hide, tanned hide, finished rug or mount), the 
recommendations of professional taxidermists and tanners, the ability 
to examine the identification marks on the tag, the ability to replace 
a lost tag, and the extent to which the tag would be obtrusive to the 
overall appearance of the trophy.
    Based on these considerations, the Service proposes that a plastic 
tag be placed like a bracelet around the ankle area of either the fore 
or hind legs of a mounted polar bear trophy. The same type of tag would 
be used for a raw or tanned hide or finished rug. In these cases, the 
Service proposes that the tag be affixed to the hide in the belly or 
flank area of the bear where it will be least disruptive to the 
taxidermy process and more likely to be concealed by the longer hair in 
these areas. To reduce the chances of a tag being snagged and ripped 
out or broken during the tanning process, and to reduce the 
obtrusiveness of the tag, the Service proposes that Service personnel 
would loop the tag upon itself prior to affixing it to a raw or tanned 
hide or a finished rug. Service personnel in Alaska have used this 
procedure when tagging sea otter pelts and have not had difficulty 
reading the tag. Provisions are also proposed to retag polar bear hides 
or mounts if tags are broken during tanning or lost.

Proposed Findings for Bears Taken Prior to the 1994 Amendments

    Section 104(c)(5)(A) includes polar bears taken, but not imported, 
prior to the 1994 Amendments. The Service proposes that a permit for 
import of trophies taken in the NWT between December 21, 1972, through 
the effective date of any final rule may be issued when the applicant 
has demonstrated that the polar bear was legally taken and was not 
pregnant or nursing at the time of take. Such trophies would be subject 
upon import to the same marking and tagging requirements as sport-
hunted polar bears taken in Canada after the effective date of any 
final rule.
    The Service proposes to issue a blanket finding covering the NWT 
historic sport-hunting program for each year starting in late 1972 to 
the present for the following reasons: (1) Canada is a signatory to the 
1973 International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears which 
came into effect on May 26, 1976; (2) the hunting of polar bears in 
Canada has been restricted to Native people since 1949; (3) polar bears 
have been managed in the NWT under a quota since 1968; (4) the NWT has 
maintained a data collection and monitoring program on the polar bear 
harvest in its territory since the 1976/77 harvest season; (5) the NWT, 
DRR, has demonstrated a progressive management program for polar bear 
which includes scientific research and traditional knowledge; and (6) 
the 1994 Amendments do not require the evaluation of Canada's past 
polar bear management history.
    It should be noted that proof the polar bear was legally harvested 
in Canada by the applicant or by a decedent from whom the applicant 
inherited the trophy may be more problematic for polar bears taken 
between late 1972 to 1976 since records maintained by DRR start from 
the mid 1970's. The Service proposes that an applicant provide the 
following to show proof of legal harvest for a polar bear taken prior 
to the effective date of the final rule if adopted: certification from 
the Government of the NWT that the bear was legally harvested and 
tagged during the specified harvest season and by the hunter of record. 
Whatever option is adopted for determining whether the specimens were 
pregnant or nursing at the time of taking, as discussed above, would 
also apply to these bears.

Public Comments Solicited

    The Service is currently deliberating on the comments received on 
its earlier proposed rule and will respond to all comments to its 
proposals in the final rule. The Service invites comments on these new 
proposals. The Service will take into consideration the comments and 
any additional information received in making a decision on this 
proposal, and such consideration may lead to final findings and 
regulation that differ from this proposal.

Required Determinations

    The Service has prepared a draft environmental assessment on the 
proposed rule, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA). A determination will be made at the time of the final decision 
as to whether the proposed rule is a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of 
Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA.
    This proposed rule was not subject to review by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866. The Department 
of the Interior (Department) has determined that this proposed rule 
will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of 
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.). The proposal will affect only those in the United States who 
have hunted, or intend to hunt, polar bear in Canada. This action is 
not expected to have significant taking implications, per Executive 
Order 12630.
    The information collection requirement contained in this section 
has been approved by OMB as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned clearance number 1018-0022. There 
will be no additional information collection requirements for tagging 
polar bears if the condition is adopted. Since the proposed rule would 
apply to importation of polar bear trophies into the United States, it 
does not contain any Federalism impacts as described in Executive Order 
12612.
    The Department has certified to OMB that these regulations meet the 
applicable standards provided in Sections 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of Executive 
Order 12778.
References Cited

Baur, D.C. 1993. Reconciling the legal mechanisms to protect and 
manage polar bears under United States laws and the Agreement for 
the Conservation of Polar Bears. Report prepared for the Marine 
Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 153 pp.
Born, E.W. 1995. Status of the polar bear in Greenland 1993. Pages 
81-103 in O. Wiig, E.W. Born, and g.W. Garner, eds. Polar Bears. 
Proc. Eleventh Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Jan. 25-29, 1993, 
Copenhagen, Denmark. Occas. Pap. IUCN Spec. Surv. Comm. No. 10. 
Gland, Switzerland. (in press)
Calvert, W., M. Taylor, L. Stirling, G.B. Kolenosky, S. Kearney, M. 
Crete, and S. Luttich. 1995. Polar bear management in Canada 1988-
92. Pages 61-80 in O. Wiig, E.W. Born, and g.W. Garner, eds. Polar 
Bears. Proc. Eleventh Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Jan. 25-28, 1993, 
Copenhagen, Denmark. Occas. Pap. IUCN Spec. Surv. Comm. No. 10. 
Gland, Switzerland. (in press)
PBSG, The World Conservation Union. 1995. Polar Bears. Proc, 
Eleventh Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Jan. 25-28, 1993, Copenhagen, 
Denmark. O. Wiig, E.W. Born, and G.W. Garner, eds. Occas. Pap. IUCN 
Spec. Surv. Comm. No. 10. Gland, Switzerland. (in press)
PBSG, The World Conservation Union (IUCN). 1988. Polar Bears. Proc. 
Tenth Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Oct. 25-29, 1988, Sochi, USSR. O. 
Wiig, ed. Occas. Pap. IUCN Spec. Surv. Comm. No. 7. Gland, 
Switzerland.

[[Page 36399]]

Lee, J., M. Taylor, and A. Sutherland. 1994. Aspects of the polar 
bear harvest in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Northwest Terr. 
Dept. Ren. Res. File Rep. No. 113. 27 pp.
Prestrud, P. and I. Stirling. 1995. The International Polar Bear 
Agreement and the current status of polar bear conservation. Aquat. 
Mammals. (in press)
Ramsay, M.A. and I. Stirling. 1986. On the mating system of polar 
bears. Can. J. Zool. 64:2142-2151.
Schliebe, S.L., S.C. Amstrup, and G.W.Garner. 1995 The status of 
polar bears in Alaska 1993. Pages 121-134 in O. Wiig, E.W. Born, and 
G.W. Garner, eds. Polar Bears. Proc. Eleventh Working Meet. IUCN/SSC 
PBSG Jan. 25-28, 1993, Copenhagen, Denmark. Occas. Pap. IUCN Spec. 
Surv. Comm. No. 10. Gland, Switzerland. (in press)
Taylor, B.L. 1995. Defining ``population'' to meet management 
objectives for marine mammals. Adm. Rep. LJ-95-03, NMFS, La Jolla, 
CA.
Taylor, M., ed. 1994. Density-dependent population regulation in 
black, brown, and polar bears. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 
Monogr. Series No. 3. 43 pp.
Taylor, M.K., D.P. DeMaster, F.L. Bunnell, and R.E. Schweinsburg. 
1987. Modeling the sustainable harvest of female polar bears. J. 
Wildl. Manage. 51(4):811-820.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Draft Habitat Conservation 
Strategy for Polar Bears in Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska. 91 pp.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18

    Administrative practice and procedures, Imports, Indians, Marine 
mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, it is hereby proposed to amend Part 18 of Chapter I of 
Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
PART 18--MARINE MAMMALS

    1. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

    2. Proposed Sec. 18.30 [proposed to be added at 60 FR 70 (January 
3, 1995)] is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (a)(5) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 18.30  Polar bear sport-hunted trophy import permits.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Proof that the polar bear was legally harvested in Canada by 
the applicant (or by a decedent from whom the applicant inherited the 
trophy), including:
    (i) If the polar bear was taken prior to (effective date of final 
rule), a certification from the Department of Renewable Resources, 
Northwest Territories, that the polar bear was legally harvested and 
tagged, giving the name of the hunter and location (settlement and 
population) and season the bear was taken;
    (ii) If the polar bear was taken on or after (effective date of 
final rule), the permittee must provide documentation at time of import 
to the Service inspector as outlined in Sec. 18.30(f)(1)(ii).
    (6) * * *

    3. Proposed Sec. 18.30 [proposed to be added at 60 FR 70 (January 
3, 1995)] is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (b) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 18.30  Polar bear sport-hunted trophy import permits.

* * * * *
    (f) Additional permit conditions. Permits to import a sport-hunted 
polar bear trophy taken in Canada are subject to the conditions 
outlined in Sec. 18.31(d) and the following special conditions:
    (1) If the polar bear was taken on or after (effective date of 
final rule), the permittee must:
    (i) Sign a statement, as a condition of the permit, that the gall 
bladder, including its contents, taken from the polar bear proposed for 
import was destroyed; and
    (ii) Provide a copy of the NWT hunting license and tag number under 
which the polar bear was taken and a Canadian CITES export permit that 
identifies the polar bear by hunting license and tag numbers;
    (2) The permittee must present to a Service inspector at the time 
of import a certification from the Department of Renewable Resources, 
Northwest Territories, that the polar bear at the time of take was not 
pregnant, was not a nursing cub, was not a mother with cubs, and was 
not moving into a den or already in a den.
    (3) Any sport-hunted trophy imported with a permit issued under 
this section must be imported through a designated port for wildlife 
imports (see Sec. 14.12) during regular business hours. The importer 
must notify Service personnel at the port at least 72 hours prior to 
the import and make arrangements for the Service to affix a tag in 
accordance with paragraph (f)(4) of this section prior to being 
cleared;
    (4) A serially numbered, permanently locking tag identifying the 
species, year of import, and port of import must be affixed by the 
Service to each sport-hunted trophy upon import and must remain fixed 
indefinitely to the trophy as proof of legal import. Tags must be 
attached in a manner established by the Service to maximize their 
longevity and minimize their adverse affects to the appearance of the 
trophy; and
    (5) In the event the tag comes off the trophy, the permittee must 
within 30 days:
    (i) Contact the nearest Service office at a designated port or a 
Law Enforcement office as given in Sec. 10.22 of this subchapter to 
schedule a time to present the trophy for retagging; and
    (ii) At the time the new tag is attached, present the broken tag 
and proof that the trophy had been tagged and legally imported or, in 
the event that the tag was lost, a signed, written explanation of how 
and when the tag was lost and proof that the trophy had been tagged and 
legally imported.
* * * * *
    4. Proposed Sec. 18.30 [proposed to be added at 60 FR 70 (January 
3, 1995)] is proposed to be amended by adding a new paragraph (j) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 18.30  Polar bear sport-hunted trophy import permits.

* * * * *
    (j) Findings. (1) The Service has determined that the Northwest 
Territories, Canada, has a monitored and enforced sport-hunting program 
that meets issuance criteria of paragraphs (e) (4) and (5) of this 
section for the following populations: Southern Beaufort Sea, Northern 
Beaufort Sea, Viscount Melville Sound, Gulf of Boothia, M'Clintock 
Channel, and Western Hudson Bay, provided:
    (i) For the Southern Beaufort Sea population, no bears be taken 
west of the equidistant line of the Beaufort Sea; the management 
agreement between the Inuvialuit Game Council and the Fish and Game 
Management Committee of the North Slope Borough in Alaska remains in 
effect; and the Yukon Territory quota remains with the Northwest 
Territories or has a joint management agreement in place with 
scientifically sound quotas;
    (ii) For the Western Hudson Bay population, a management agreement 
between the Northwest Territories and Manitoba is in effect with 
scientifically sound quotas;
    (iii) For all of these populations, that females with cubs, cubs, 
or polar bears moving into denning areas or already in dens are 
protected from taking by hunting activities; and
    (iv) The number of sport-hunted trophies taken in the prior harvest 
season does not exceed 15 percent of the total quota of the Northwest 
Territories.
    (2) Any sport-hunted trophy taken in the Northwest Territories on 
or after (effective date of final rule) from a population that 
currently is not approved by the Service for import, will only be 
approved for an import permit if the Service can find, based on 

[[Page 36400]]
updated information from the Northwest Territories, that:
    (i) The total harvest during that harvest season and the average of 
the three preceding harvest seasons was sustainable for the affected 
population; and
    (ii) A management agreement(s) was in place with Greenland and/or a 
province(s) that shares the population with the Northwest Territories.
    (3) Any sport-hunted trophy taken in the Northwest Territories, 
Canada, between December 21, 1972, and (effective date of final rule) 
must meet the issuance criteria of paragraphs (e)(1), (2), (3), and 
(6)(i) of this section and may be imported upon obtaining an import 
permit prior to import and meeting the conditions of paragraphs (f) 
(2), (3), (4), and (5) of this section.

    Dated: June 22, 1995.
George T. Frampton,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 95-17432 Filed 7-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P