<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:41402.wais]
POLAR BEAR TROPHIES IMPORTATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H. J. RES. 59
To disapprove a rule affecting polar bear trophies from Canada under
the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act issued by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the
Interior
__________
APRIL 30, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-18
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-402cc WASHINGTON : 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held April 30, 1997...................................... 1
Text of H. J. Res. 59............................................ 52
Statement of Members:
Cunningham, Hon. Randy ``Duke'', a U.S. Representative from
California................................................. 49
Miller, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California... 49
Norwood, Hon. Charlie, a U.S. Representative from Georgia.... 2
Peterson, Hon. Collin, a U.S. Representative from Minnesota.. 3
Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska; and
Chairman, Committee on Resources........................... 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Akeeagok, David, Grise Fiord, Northwest Territories, Canada.. 32
Gosliner, Mike, Marine Mammal Commission..................... 13
Hofman, Dr. Robert J., Marine Mammal Commission.............. 13
Jones, Dr. J.Y., Dublin, GA.................................. 37
Prepared statement....................................... 115
Jones, Marshall, Assistant Director for International
Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DOI............... 11
Prepared statement....................................... 56
Morrill, Dr. William, Safari Club International, Herndon, VA. 33
Prepared statement....................................... 81
Reynolds, Dr. John E., III, Chairman, Marine Mammal
Commission................................................. 13
Prepared statement....................................... 61
Rose, Dr. Naomi, Marine Mammal Scientist, Humane Society of
the United States.......................................... 35
Prepared statement....................................... 101
Rowland, J. Roy, former Congressman, Dublin, GA.............. 5
Prepared statement....................................... 54
Stansell, Ken, USFWS, Department of the Interior............. 11
Young, Michael, USFWS, Department of the Interior............ 11
Additional material supplied:
Testa, J.W., Ph.D.: Importation of Polar Bear Trophies From
Canada Under the 1994 Amendments to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (report).................................... 69
Communications submitted:
Bass, Hon. Charles F.: Letters to--
Dort S. Bigg dated:
October 19, 1995..................................... 136
February 24, 1997.................................... 133
Hon. Don Young dated April 25, 1997...................... 125
Bigg, Dort S., to:
Hon. Charles Bass dated
September 21, 1995................................... 134
February 7, 1997..................................... 131
March 18, 1997....................................... 129
April 4, 1997........................................ 126
Kearney, Kathy: Memorandum of October 31, 1995, to John
Jackson on importation of polar bear hunting trophies...... 93
Jones, Marshall: Letter of May 8, 1996, to Dort S. Bigg...... 137
Rose, Naomi A., Ph.D.: Letter of November 6, 1995, to
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service on proposed rule....... 109
POLAR BEAR TROPHIES FROM CANADA
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young (Chairman
of the Committee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALASKA;
AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
The Chairman. Today we will hear testimony on H.J.
Resolution 59, a resolution I introduced with Charlie Norwood,
Collin Peterson, Ron Paul and Saxby Chambliss.
The purpose of this resolution is quite simple: to
disapprove the Department of Interior's final rule on the
importation of certain polar bear trophies.
Since coming to Congress, I have been involved with the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Over the years, I have
worked hard to improve the law, and we were successful in
enacting a number of positive changes in 1994. One of those
provisions gave the Secretary of the Interior the authority to
issue permits to Americans to import legally taken polar bear
trophies from Canada both before and after 1994.
Our intent in passing this provision was clear: we wanted
to make it easier for hunters to import polar bear trophies
into the United States as long as that activity did not
adversely affect Canadian polar bear populations. There are
about 13,120 polar bears in the Northwest Territories of
Canada. According to scientific experts, this population is
growing by three to five percent each year. Since the annual
quota for sport hunting was 132 animals in 1996, this harvest
rate has little if any effect on any of Canada's polar bear
populations. What this activity is doing, however, is providing
thousands of dollars to the Canadian Eskimos, allowing them to
maintain their cultural heritage.
On July 17, 1995, 15 months after the enactment of the 1994
amendments, the Department of the Interior issued a proposed
rule allowing all pre-1994 polar bear trophies to enter the
United States. This was a correct interpretation of the 1994
amendments.
We must not lose sight of the fact that these are dead
bears. I mean long dead. While we cannot wish them back to
life, we can attain benefits to finance conservation programs
of Alaska and Russia polar bear research populations by
collecting a $1000 fee for each bear that is imported into this
country that has been long dead.
Furthermore, the 1994 amendments authorize the Secretary to
make a determination on whether an import permit should be
issued based on these criteria. The Canadian management program
is based on scientifically sound principles that ensure the
sustainability of the polar bear population. The management
plan is consistent with international agreements. And the
issuance of a permit is not--will not contribute to illegal
trade in other bear parts.
On February 17, 1997, after years of delay, the Department
of Interior issued its final rule. In a move that would make
any world class gymnast blush, the Department did a complete
reversal without even the benefit of a trampoline, and
announced it would now limit the importation of both new and
old polar bear trophies to only five of the 12 identified
populations in the Canadian Northwest Territories.
While no rational explanation was provided, it is clear
that in a mad rush to avoid litigation the Department has
ignored both the scientific data and the Congressional intent
contained in the 1994 MMPA amendments.
The bottom line in this debate is the specific criteria
outlined in the 1994 amendments have been satisfied. Canada has
a growing population of polar bears. Sound conservation
programs exist in the Northwest Territories, and a limited
number of polar bear trophies will not undermine the
sustainability of these populations. Even the Marine Mammal
Commission, no fan of the polar bear provision, believes the
Department has erred in not allowing the importation of polar
bear trophies from additional populations.
I look forward to hearing from my distinguished witnesses.
I want to know why it took nearly three years to reach the
wrong conclusion, why the Department is holding Canada to a
higher standard than Congress intended in 1994 and when the
Department intends to decide on the seven other polar bear
populations.
[Correspondence may be found at end of hearing.]
The Chairman. Are there any other opening statements? Mr.
Norwood.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE NORWOOD, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
GEORGIA
Mr. Norwood. Thank you very much, Chairman Young, and
members of the Committee for inviting me here this morning to
be part of the Resource Committee's hearing on the Fish and
Wildlife Service interpretation of the 1994 Marine Mammal
Protection Act.
Two of today's panelists hail from the 10th District of
Georgia. Congressman Roy Rowland represented part of the
current 10th District in Washington for 12 years. While in
Congress, Dr. Rowland emerged as a bipartisan leader on a wide
range of issues including health care reform, the environment,
budget deficit reduction and transportation. Dr. Rowland is
currently the director of the Georgia Medicaid program, and I
would like to welcome Dr. Rowland.
And continuing with my statement, Mr. Chairman, with the
second panelist seated I would like to welcome the second
Georgian, if I may.
The Chairman. You can welcome all of Georgia. You have got
great people in that great State. You don't have many turkeys,
you know.
Mr. Norwood. Some folks can't kill them.
If the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1994 was supposed to
facilitate the import of legally harvested polar bears, why are
we here this morning, Mr. Chairman? I do not want to impose on
your generosity for the time that you have given me today, but
I will sum up simply by saying that the intent of Congress was
that the Secretary may issue a permit for the importation of
polar bear parts, other than internal organs, taken in sport
hunts in Canada, including polar bears taken prior to the date
of the enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act amendments
of 1994.
I just--I want some questions answered here today and hope
that we will get them. And it is simply this, were these bears
legally harvested. It is my understanding that they were and
each applicant for import certainly must have proven that.
Is the importation of these bears consistent with the
conventional international trade of endangered species of which
the United States is a partner? I understand it is and that
each applicant must produce the proper permit to prove that.
Does Canada have a sound professional management plan in
place for polar bears? I understand that Congress determined it
does when it commended this act in 1994.
Will the native villagers benefit from the sport hunting of
these polar bears? I understand that they benefit enormously
and they will hear much testimony--we will hear much testimony
today supporting this.
And finally and perhaps most importantly, will there be any
negative impact on the current population of polar bears in
Canada? I understand that the opposite is true here, that part
of the $1000 permit fee is used for polar bear conservation.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much again for holding this
hearing and allowing me to testify. I look forward to hearing
the testimonies of our witnesses. To me it is just basic common
sense to allow the importation of these polar bear trophies.
And I believe it should be allowed without any additional
delay.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any other opening
statements?
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome my
colleague from Minnesota. He is from the temporary 6th Great
Lake of Western Minnesota, so I am pleased to see him here and
his work on the Congress is well known. Thank you.
The Chairman. Any other opening statements? If not, I will
recognize Mr. Peterson, because he is the seat member, and then
Dr. Rowland, who is not seated but fondly remembered.
STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN PETERSON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and the other members for the opportunity to speak here today.
As I think you are aware, there are approximately 400 polar
bears that were legally harvested under Canada's polar bear
management program and are currently in storage in Canada
because they have not been able to be imported into the United
States. Many of these animals belong to my constituents, and
they are very frustrated, they thought this had been fixed.
Congress amended the Marine Mammal Protection Act of '94 to
allow the importation of these legally harvested trophies. The
language of this amendment specifically refers to the imports
of bears harvested prior to the amendment's adoption and it
said the Secretary--and I quote, ``the Secretary may issue a
permit for the importation of polar bear parts taken in sport
hunts in Canada, including polar bears taken but not imported
prior to the date of the enactment of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act amendments of 1994, to an applicant which
submits with its permit application proof that the polar bear
was legally harvested in Canada by the applicant.''
Now I think what is in question is some report language
that accompanied this legislation that said it is the
Committee's intent that all conditions outlined by this
amendment concerning the importation of polar bear trophies
taken prior to the adoption of this amendment have to be met.
We think the correct interpretation of the requirements
mandated by this language is that permit applicants must prove
that they had the proper international permit, the animal was
properly tagged and it can be proven that the animal was
legally harvested.
The Department of Interior interpreted the language
originally this way when they issued their proposed rule July
17, 1995, which as you pointed out, was almost 15 months after
the enactment of the bill. And under this proposed rule, all
polar bears harvested before the date of the final rule were
grandfathered in and could be imported into the United States
if it could be proven that they had not already been imported,
that the specimen is sport hunter trophy, that the bear was
legally harvested and that it was consistent with CITES.
However, the final rule published on February 18, 1997,
made significant changes in this grandfather clause. In regard
to previously taken polar bears, the final rule only allowed
for the importation of polar bears from populations deemed to
be currently sustainable. And as a result, the majority of the
bears that have been previously taken are still in freezers up
in Canada and my constituents and a lot of your constituents
are paying storage fees and are very unhappy.
According to a review of the Administrative record of the
Department of Interior on this rulemaking, in my opinion no new
biological or scientific evidence was uncovered which warranted
a change in the grandfather clause. Rather I think the
Department reacted to advice from the Solicitor's Office
regarding fears of a lawsuit from anti-hunting organizations if
the grandfather clause remained as proposed. My question is why
didn't the Solicitor's Office offer this interpretation when it
reviewed the proposed rule in 1995? Wildlife management
decisions should be made on the basis of sound scientific data
and not on the basis of threats or fears of retaliatory
lawsuits.
And the change in this grandfather clause ignores one of
the primary motives that Congress had in amending the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of '94, which was to allow the
importation of these bears. In addition, the issue of the
grandfather clause was further complicated by the long time it
took the Department to act on the direction of Congress. And
this 15-month delay between the passage of the act, the
proposed rule and the 20-month wait, does not conform with the
intent and the expectation of Congress.
I had a long discussion with former Congressman Jack
Fields, who is the author of this, and he does not think that
this rule is in conformance with what he thought he was trying
to accomplish.
This has also been pointed out, these bears are dead. This
is not going to have any negative effect on anything at this
point and the money, the $1000 permit fee, is going toward
polar bear conservation.
In closing, preventing the importation of these bears
doesn't make any sense. It ignores the intent of Congress. It
would have no negative impact on current polar bear population
and denies a valuable source of funds for polar bear
conservation. Accordingly, I think the Department should issue
new regulations grandfathering all these bears and move in the
direction that we originally intended.
Thank you very much and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Congressman. Congressman Rowland.
STATEMENT OF J. ROY ROWLAND, FORMER CONGRESSMAN, DUBLIN,
GEORGIA
Mr. Rowland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members
of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here
today, and especially to visit with many of you who are
longtime friends. I don't envy you the task that you have in
governing our country, but I commend you, every Member of
Congress, for shouldering that responsibility. And I want to
thank my good friend and my Congressman Charlie Norwood for
introducing me today.
One of the issues that I dealt with while a Member of the
House is before you today. Dr. J.Y. Jones, a close personal
friend and medical colleague, and also one of my constituents,
approached me with the surprising information that a person
from the United States could go to Canada and hunt polar bears
legally under the auspices of their hunting program but could
not legally bring their trophy home.
I have the utmost regard for J.Y. He is an excellent
physician and surgeon with the highest personal ethics. He is
greatly respected by the people in the community where we live
and he gives generously of his time and resources and has done
a total of 14 medical missionary trips to Honduras and Jamaica.
After receiving additional information from him, including the
fact that he personally had a polar bear trophy in Canada he
couldn't bring home, I agreed to look into the matter and get
back with him on the feasibility of amending the Marine Mammal
Protection Act to allow such import.
It appeared to me that such a restriction was unwarranted
in view of the fact that our neighbor Canada is perfectly
capable of managing their own wildlife resources without our
interference.
I discussed the import ban informally with my friend Gerry
Studds, then Chairman of the House Merchant Marine and
Fisheries Committee, and he expressed an interest in changing
the law to allow import of polar bear trophies under certain
conditions. He told me that he would have his staff research
the law and prepare a proposal that might remove this
restriction. Other interested Members of Congress specifically
wanted to allow importation of polar bears already stored in
Canada that had been legally taken. Also, those bears already
harvested could have no effect on the polar bear population, so
it made good sense to allow their importation if they had been
legally taken.
The opportunity to make this change in the law came shortly
thereafter as the reauthorization of the original Marine Mammal
Protection Act came up for consideration. I talked with
Congressman Studds on several occasions and our staff people
worked together on the amendments. Other Members of Congress
gave input and advice concerning the pending legislation, and
an effort was mounted to include the needed language. The
actual legislation was finalized in early 1994.
The record is clear that the Merchant Marines and Fisheries
Committee was indeed successful in resolving the issue and
subsequently recommended to the full House of Representatives
that legally harvested polar bear trophies from Canada be
permitted importation into United States by our citizens who
had hunted there in the past or would do so in the future.
After the House and Senate resolved their differences, the
legislation was passed by both houses of Congress and it was
signed into law by President Clinton on April 30, 1994, which
is incidentally exactly three years ago today.
Now I have learned still today, despite the interval of
three years, not a single polar bear trophy has been imported
under the amended law. What is even more mind boggling is that
a simple bipartisan mandate of the Congress has been expanded
far beyond its original intent, I am told, to include 30 pages
of rules, a complicated application process, and provisions
attached that even the name of the individual hunter applying
for an import permit must be published in the Federal Register.
I am also surprised that polar bears already stored in Canada,
legally harvested in years past and specifically approved by
Congress for import, have been held up indefinitely by a broad
and bewildering array of polar bear subpopulation evaluations.
I have been asked to testify as to what the intent of
Congress was in 1994 on this issue. I believe that Congress
expected the issuance of polar bear import permits to begin
immediately. I know that I did. After five months of inaction
on the new amendment, I joined a group of concerned Congressmen
who sent a letter to Secretary Babbitt of the Interior
Department urging him to use the authority granted him to
develop interim regulations for polar bear imports so that
waiting sportsmen could proceed with the importation without
further delay. We recommended that if he believed a more
detailed regulatory process be necessary, he could undertake
that proceeding thereafter. Instead, the United State Fish and
Wildlife Service developed these voluminous and dilatory
regulations we have today.
In summary, it was never the intent of Congress, based on
my knowledge, that we attempt to micromanage the Canadian polar
bear conservation system or to force Canada into new
international agreements, but that we simply allow U.S. hunters
to apply for and receive a permit to import their trophy if a
few simple criteria were met, the most key of which being that
the bear was legally taken in Canada and not illegally imported
already. The regulations appear to go far beyond Congressional
intent. They are yet another example of the tendency toward
over-regulation in many levels of the Federal bureaucracy.
I urge the members of the Committee to do what is necessary
to carry out the will of Congress as passed in 1994, and I
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement of J. Roy Rowland may be found at end of
hearing.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor. First, I agree with you
100 percent because I am one of the few people who have been on
the Fishery Committee for the last 25 years and now we took it
to this Committee. It was a bipartisan effort. Everybody agreed
to it, including the Administration. And now we find out that
we have people that think that they are God and can tell the
Congress to go fly a kite. And that is why we are going to vote
on this before the House and find out whether they are God or
not. It is wrong when they go against the intent, including the
report language. These bears are dead. It is the government of
Canada that does recognize it. And what we tried to do in this
business, by the way, was to improve the polar bear population.
I think we will hear testimony later on that this increased
the value of the polar bear. It has protected the young. It has
protected the sows. It has really, in fact, been harvesting the
old boars, which are much more valuable. And that was the
intent of the Congress. No way would Gerry Studds support
something that wasn't that. And to have now an agency saying
this is incorrect, I want to thank you for your memory. That is
one reason I think that the institution should have a longer
term instead of shorter term, so they do have some knowledge of
what was the intent and what people thought they were doing and
what does happen at a later date.
Collin, I am going to ask a question. If you can, how do
you think that the polar bear populations are affected by
prohibiting the importation of these bears?
Mr. Peterson. I don't think it has a negative effect,
because if we would allow the importation, the fees would be
paid and that money would go to conservation. It is going to
have no negative effect in terms of harvest, because no one is
questioning that we are going to have to have rules going
forward and that there is going to have to be a management plan
in place and that we are going to have to make sure that the
rules are such that we are doing the right kind of
conservation. But these dead bears have been taken and it is
not going to have any impact one way or the other on
conservation other than negative because we don't have the
money.
The Chairman. Under the present rule as being proposed by I
don't know who, is there any conservation in that regulation
that you can see?
Mr. Peterson. Not that I can see.
The Chairman. That is what my interpretation is, there is
none whatsoever. And if I remember correctly, Dr. Rowland, is
it not true that we had testimony from our scientists, the
Marine Mammal Commission, and the Canadian scientists that were
meeting their goal was to promote and actually improve the
polar bear population? That was testified to this Committee, is
that correct?
Mr. Rowland. My recollection, that is exactly correct.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlemen. The gentleman--Mr.
Vento.
Mr. Vento. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that
there is some controversy now. I was reading ahead to the other
testimony and, just to understand the intent of this particular
rule change, the intent here is just to knock out this rule.
And then what would we be left with then?
The Chairman. What would be left is a rule that follows the
intent of Congress. They have to come back----
Mr. Vento. I think the thing is that they had proposed a
rule in '95. This law passed in '94. They proposed a rule in
'95 and then they came up with this final rule in February or
March.
The Chairman. Which is a reversal of the original rule.
Mr. Vento. So we knock it out with this. Then what do you
put in its place?
The Chairman. Nothing until they issue another rule with
the intent of Congress. The have to follow Congress.
Mr. Vento. It would be an indication that we disagree with
it.
The Chairman. There might be a--in fact, I may issue a
citation of contempt of Congress, because they are not
following our lead in what the Congress passed. They do not
have that authority. You should accept that.
Mr. Vento. I am simply asking what the effect would be of
knocking out the rule. That is what--and so you are saying----
The Chairman. They have to come back with a rule.
Mr. Vento. They would have to come back, but I mean the----
The Chairman. The intent----
Mr. Vento. The issue is that there is--you will see in the
next testimony that there is an issue here about the
retroactivity, in other words, dealing with the grandfather.
That is one issue. And then there is another issue
perspectively. So what is the message we are sending here? The
intent is obviously we want to grandfather importation of bear
trophies that had been harvested between '94 and '97, is that
the intent? You want to grandfather those in because the rule
wasn't out and folks were operating on the basis----
The Chairman. And prior, as long as they are legally taken.
Mr. Vento. Well, whatever. That is one of the intents, but
then perspectively is it the intent not to deal with the--and
they, incidentally, talk about 14 areas in Canada, not 13--but
is it the intent then to comply with or to then live with the--
they are saying you can hunt in five areas out of the 14 or six
areas out of the 14. Is the message that you want to send that
you want--that perspectively that their interpretation of where
the hunting can be permitted is inappropriate or not?
The Chairman. It is my intent that we made an agreement
with Canada. Canada defines scientifically which areas are
appropriately being hunted. We have now an agency within the
United States saying without scientific information that you
cannot hunt in certain areas.
Mr. Vento. Basically, then, there are two issues, in other
words. There is the issue of the grandfather for whatever
reason----
The Chairman. That is right.
Mr. Vento.--those trophies are there. Then there is the
second issue, as I see this, of whether or not--what our
relationship is with the Canadian permits to hunt for trophies.
They are permitting them in, apparently, all 14 areas or
something of this nature and/or 13 of the 14, and we are saying
that it should be restricted to five.
The Chairman. Yes, without scientific information, nothing
to back it up.
Mr. Vento. OK.
The Chairman. So what we are doing, we are imposing our
will against the Canadian government, and I don't think that is
what we should be doing in the case where we have reached these
agreements.
Mr. Vento. Well, I am just trying to understand what the
issues were, Mr. Chairman. I am just learning about this, but I
would just point out on page two of the testimony, and, you
know, maybe Collin or our friend Roy--I am sorry I didn't
welcome you. I want to recognize our long friendship and work.
But they point out the Service was required to determine
under the 1994 amendments in consultation with the Marine
Mammal Commission that these requirements were met in order to
allow polar bear trophy imports. As part of these requirements,
the Service is required to conclude the Canada sport hunting
program is consistent with the purposes of the 1973 agreement
on the conservation of bears and is based on scientifically
sound quotas to ensure, the key word, the sustainability of
effective population stock. Although these requirements were
simply stated in the 1994 amendments, they are complex and
involve multiple issues.
So I am just--I mean, this is obviously a different
requirement that they are reading the '94 law in a way that is
inconsistent. So we will have to try to iron it out, and I
understand that, Mr. Chairman, further that this is--apparently
the Solicitor, Mr. Leshy, from Interior interpreted or was
responsible for being consulted, or someone in his office, with
regard to this issue.
So I do think that, you know, since what you are really
doing is knocking out the rule here, there is nothing being put
in its place and I think we better get back to look at whether
the law and what the law requires, because in fact if that
interpretation is correct by a court, they could put in a rule
and effect they want and they may apparently be challenged.
The Chairman. That may be true, but they cannot, regardless
of what they think they will be challenged about, go against
the will of Congress. If they in fact implement a rule that we
have directed them to do so and then they are taken to court,
we will win. I mean, this idea--every time I hear one of my
agency say oh, we might have to go to court, so--they hide
under the table. Any time the Sierra Club or Friends of the
Earth or Friends of the Animal group threaten a lawsuit, they
go hide under the table.
Mr. Vento. Well, Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman. And we told them--this Congress told them
what to do.
Mr. Vento. Well, I think that it may be the law of
unintended consequence that you didn't intend or Mr. Studds
didn't or Mr. Fields didn't, but if this particular type of
change did occur, I think we can rationally look at it and make
a determination. And what I am suggesting to you is that maybe
the answer is not so much in dealing with the rule but
fundamentally looking at the law to see if there is a basis for
what their action is.
The Chairman. We will look at that. We don't believe it. I
had my lawyers look at it. We don't think there is any
rationale. Listen to what you just said about if they are
difficult, was it, and it is complex. I mean that is pure
gobbly goop. That is all it is, just gobbly goop. It is a way
to delay the----
Mr. Vento. It is a complex and involved multiple issue.
The Chairman. Multiple issues. They don't define the
multiple issues. They do not give us any scientific
information. They do not consider Canada at all, and that was
not the intent of the legislation.
Mr. Vento. I think the witnesses adequately answered the
questions.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Peterson or Mr. Rowland?
Mr. Peterson. I associate myself with the Chairman's
remarks.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Georgia. Excuse me, in all
due respects I have to recognize members of the Committee
first.
Mr. Norwood. Sure.
The Chairman. The gentleman from California.
Mr. Calvert. I have no comment, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from----
Mr. Walter Jones. I have nothing.
The Chairman. OK, the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Norwood. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I do thank
these witnesses. And I was not in Congress when this was
passed, but it clearly seems to everyone I can talk to that the
Department did not write rules and regulations, and both of our
Members here just said that they did not write rules and
regulations according to the will of Congress. In fact, as we
get on into this hearing a little bit, a lot of the thoughts
from the USFWS, you will find that had they used a little
better data, for example some data as well as Canada might have
used, they may too have come up with a different decision. So I
thank you gentlemen very much for being here. And thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Hawaii. You were here, I
believe, were you not?
Mr. Abercrombie. I beg your pardon?
The Chairman. You were on the Committee when this passed.
Mr. Abercrombie. Yes. Mr. Chairman, is the next witness to
come up Mr. Jones to address the----
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. [continuing]--process of----
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. I will withhold questions until that time.
The Chairman. All right, thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate
you being here. Have a good flight, Doctor.
Mr. Rowland. Thank you.
The Chairman. The next witness is Mr. Marshall Jones,
Assistant Director of International Affairs, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of Interior. He is accompanied by
Mr. Ken Stansell and Mr. Michael Young. Dr. John E. Reynolds,
III, Chairman of Marine Mammal Commission, is accompanied by
Mr. Mike Gosliner and Dr. Robert Hofman. Mr. Jones.
STATEMENT OF MARSHALL JONES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY KEN STANSELL AND
MICHAEL YOUNG
Mr. Marshall Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate
your giving us this opportunity to testify before you today on
House Joint Resolution 59, which would disapprove our recent
regulations for the import of polar bear trophies from Canada.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I have with me Mr. Kenneth
B. Stansell, who is the Chief of our CITES Management
Authority, and Mr. Michael Young from the Department of
Interior's Solicitor's Office, as well as members of Mr.
Stansell's staff who prepared the rule.
Mr. Chairman, the development of these regulations over the
past three years has involved some of the most controversial
and difficult issues that I have had to deal with in 20 years
in the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Recognizing, Mr. Chairman, your views that the intent of
Congress was clear, unfortunately the record which was
compiled, the comments that we received during the comment
period and our own review of the legislation indicated to us
that we had to make findings not only involving future polar
bears which might be taken in Canada, but also the bears that
were already taken and that were sitting in storage. Our goal,
Mr. Chairman, was to import, to allow the import of as many
polar bears as meet the requirements of the law.
Before I address some of the problems, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to emphasize some of the positive aspects of this
rule. First of all, Mr. Chairman, we determined that five of
Canada's 12 polar bear populations fully meet the criteria that
were contained in the law and the 1994 amendments, and we have
approved them for import. The first 16 permit applications have
now been approved and another 45 permit applications are now in
the review process. So that within the next few weeks, Mr.
Chairman, we believe that we will have approved 50 to 60 polar
bear trophy imports.
Mr. Chairman, I have the first tag which would be applied
to the first permit, and we are anxious for the day when this
tag is put on a trophy that is brought into the United States.
And that is followed by as many trophies as will meet the
requirements of the law.
Also, Mr. Chairman, we were able to approve these
applications, I believe, because of our decision to address
each of Canada's polar bear populations separately. We believe
that this approach was fully justified by the amendments to the
law and the Marine Mammal Act itself. If we had chosen the
alternative approach, to look at Canada on an all or none
basis, Mr. Chairman, we were concerned that our decision would
have had to be that because some areas of Canada didn't meet
the criteria, all of Canada would have failed to meet the
criteria and we wouldn't have been able to allow import of any
trophies on that basis. We avoided that outcome, Mr. Chairman,
by using the population by population approach.
I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that we did not
disapprove any populations. We approved some. We deferred
others until we receive additional scientific data. No polar
bear population has the door closed to import, although some
people wanted us to disapprove some of those. We did not take
that step. We have left the door open, and as soon as we can
get new information which indicates they qualify under the
criteria, we are prepared to approve them.
Mr. Chairman, we have received new information from Canada
and are now working on a proposal to make new findings
regarding two additional areas in Canada in addition to the
five which have already been approved.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me briefly address the major concern
which has been raised about the regulations, our decision that
all trophy imports must meet the criteria in the 1994
amendments regardless of when they were taken. We originally
proposed a blanket finding which would have allowed import of
all trophies taken before the 1994 amendments. However, the
Marine Mammal Commission and other commenters clearly
demonstrated that this approach was not legally defensible
based on the specific requirements in the law and in the House
Committee report which accompanied it. Thus in our final rule,
we were obligated to apply the same criteria to all trophies,
regardless of where they were taken.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that we
recognize that some are disappointed with our final rule and
believe it was too restrictive. On the other hand, Mr.
Chairman, I think this morning you will also hear from some who
believe the rule was too permissive. Overall we believe that we
have accurately and fairly implemented the '94 amendments in a
way which supports Canada's polar bear management program,
which we acknowledge is the best in the world, as well as the
traditional hunting rights of Canada's native people and the
legitimate desires of sport hunters.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, if House Joint Resolution
59 is enacted and the regulation is disapproved, we do not
believe that under the existing provisions of the law we would
be able to prepare a new final rule which is substantially
different from the existing regulations. On the other hand, Mr.
Chairman, we are prepared to work closely with you, with sport
hunters and with Canada to facilitate the approval of all
populations which meet the requirements of the law, to make
those decisions promptly and to open as many doors as we can to
the import of polar bear trophies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am prepared to answer any
questions which you may have.
[Statement of Marshall Jones may be found at end of
hearing.]
The Chairman. Dr. John Reynolds.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN E. REYNOLDS, III, CHAIRMAN, MARINE MAMMAL
COMMISSION, MIKE GOSLINER AND DR. ROBERT J. HOFMAN
Dr. Reynolds. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting the Marine Mammal Commission to testify
on House Joint Resolution 59. I am accompanied today by Michael
Gosliner, the Commission's General Counsel, and Robert Hofman,
the Commission's Scientific Program Director.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act amendments of 1994
authorized the Department of the Interior to issue permits for
importing polar bear trophies taken legally by applicants in
sport hunts in Canada provided that certain findings are made.
The statute places responsibility for making these findings on
Interior and ascribes a consultative role to the Commission.
The Commission commented on each finding required under the
amendments. We did so to meet our responsibility to see that
the Marine Mammal Protection Act is faithfully implemented as
enacted. The Act clearly provides for authorizing the hunting
of polar bears and other marine mammals and the importation of
trophies in certain circumstances. And our statutory
responsibility is to see that all applicable conditions are met
before such taking or importation is allowed. We believe the
final rule reflects the statutory criteria.
My oral statement will be confined to the finding that
Canada's sport hunting program is based on scientifically sound
quotas, ensuring the maintenance of the affected population
stock at a sustainable level. Although the Service suggested in
its proposed rule that this, as well as other findings, were
not applicable to those trophies taken by U.S. hunters in
Canada prior to the enactment of the amendments, a plain
reading of the statute and the accompanying statement of
legislative intent indicate otherwise. Our comments therefore
questioned the basis upon which the Service proposed
differential treatment of trophies taken before and after
enactment of the amendments.
With respect to the finding of scientific soundness as it
relates to pre-amendment trophies, the Commission noted that
the nature of the required findings suggested that historical
data be used and recommended that, at a minimum, the findings
be based on present day quotas and management practices for
each population.
The other key question for the Service to resolve was
whether the findings of scientific soundness were to be made
for the individual polar bear management units in Canada, a
single Canadian population, or for some other division of the
populations. The Commission generally supported the use of
management units as being appropriate and recommended that the
final rule link the management units to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act's definition of population stock.
The Service published its final rule in February, making
affirmative findings for five of the 12 management units used
by Canada when the rule was proposed. The Commission believes
that the final rule better reflects the statutory requirements
and that the final rule is a considerable improvement over the
original proposal. In the Commission's view, the Service, based
on the record before it at that time, could not have sustained
affirmative findings for any of the other seven management
units.
With final rules now in effect, there are three options on
how to proceed. First, amend the rule based on revised
interpretations of the statute. Second, amend the Act to
establish different requirements, or third, work within the
existing regulatory framework to consider additional data as
they are developed. The Commission recommends the third option,
i.e. working within the existing regulatory framework.
This option enables the Service to consider new information
and proposed revisions to the regulations as warranted. As
described in Commission publications, this is something that is
described as adaptive management, where you continually take in
new data and revise your regulations.
Shortly after publication of the final rule, the Commission
obtained the most recent information on the status of Canadian
polar bear populations and changes to Canada's management
program. To assist in its review of this information, the
Commission contracted with J. Ward Testa, Ph.D., a population
biologist and biometrician. Dr. Testa's report, appended to my
full statement, takes into account comments from the
Commission, its Committee of Scientific Advisors, and outside
reviewers.
The report concluded that the Canadian polar bear program
is consistent with generally accepted principles of sound
resource management, that the methods and models used by Canada
to set polar bear quotas are conceptually sound, and that
available data supported Canada's realignment of the Queen
Elizabeth Islands, Parry Channel and Baffin Bay management
units into five management units.
Using the criteria adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Service
in the final rule, the report also examined whether polar bears
from other management units might now qualify for import
permits under the Act. It concluded that two of the revised
management units, Lancaster Sound and Norwegian Bay, appear to
meet the necessary criteria. Based on a review of the report,
the Commission, in consultation with its Committee of
Scientific Advisors, has recommended that the Service, if it
concurs with our analysis, initiate a rulemaking to make
affirmative findings for these two additional management units.
As for the remaining six management units, the Commission
believes that there are problems that Canada still needs to
resolve. We are well aware that some groups believe that the
rule did not go far enough to allow imports of pre-amendment
trophies or polar bears taken in other management units and
that other groups felt that the Service's rule was too
permissive. We believe that the Service's final rule accurately
and appropriately implemented the plain language of the
amendment.
And I also would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[Statement of Dr. John E. Reynolds, III may be found at end
of hearing.]
The Chairman. All right, thank you. Mr. Jones, you
mentioned you approved five of the 12 populations. Does the
government of Canada believe all 12 populations have satisfied
the criteria of the act?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, I don't think the
government of Canada has given us a direct comment or an
evaluation.
The Chairman. How did you base it?
Mr. Marshall Jones. We used data.
The Chairman. If they didn't give you a comment, what data
did you use?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, we used data that was
provided by Canada. We had to do the evaluation. They provided
the data.
The Chairman. OK, now, in 1994 the government of Canada has
communicated to the Committee and the United States that sport
hunting of polar bears does not adversely affect the
sustainability of the country's polar bear population and does
not have a detrimental effect on maintaining these populations
throughout their range. That was 1994. Now you just said they
have the best system in the world.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What criteria--what did you base your finding
on?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, we based our finding on
the criteria that were contained in the law, and particularly
one of the criteria which was the most difficult, the criteria
that there must be scientifically based quotas which will
provide for a sustainable population.
The Chairman. OK, and what--let us say Canada comes down
with a quota all the rest of the regions of two bears or three
bears or four bears per region.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, if there were an enforced
quota for each of the populations in Canada, then most likely
we would have been able to approve all of the populations.
The Chairman. But would you make a definition of enforced
quota? What would be your idea of an enforced quota? Would it
be two or three or five or ten or 15 or 20?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, Canada has the scientific
basis to set their quotas, and we wouldn't try to tell them
what those quotas should be.
The Chairman. Without being argumentative, then, how can
you deny the rest of the regions if they set the criteria. They
submitted it to you, and yet you denied it. What basis--who
told you to do this?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, there are provinces in
Canada which don't have enforced quotas. The government of the
Northwest Territories has what we think is a superb system. It
involves quotas and it involves checking and it involves a
scientific basis. Some of the other provinces, however, Mr.
Chairman, either have quotas which are guaranteed and are not
adjusted no matter what happens or don't have quotas at all.
The Chairman. OK, the Marine Mammal Commission believes
that the Lancaster population should be approved. Why is there
disagreement?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, we don't have a
disagreement.
The Chairman. Then why isn't it approved?
Mr. Marshall Jones. We received the information too late to
include it in the final rule which we published.
The Chairman. OK, now my last statement. The thing that
probably concerns me most, I sat in this Committee. We worked
this out. We had the agreement. The Administration signed the
bill. And you are sitting there and telling me you are going to
work with everybody involved and you are going to do it in an
expedited manner. Why should I believe you?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman. 1994, what year is--what day is today? Three
years ago. What makes me think that you are going to do
anything better?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, the issue that we had to
deal with, as I mentioned, were very difficult. And
understanding that your belief was that the intent of Congress
was clear, when we read the law and when we looked at the
criteria, we found that it required a lot of judgments on our
part.
The Chairman. Did the Solicitor tell you that you were
going to be sued if you issued regulations as you proposed
originally?
Mr. Marshall Jones. No, sir. Mr. Chairman, we discussed the
possibility that we could be sued. No one told us that we
would.
The Chairman. By who?
Mr. Marshall Jones. By those who were unhappy--would be
unhappy with the regulations.
The Chairman. But why--but you have a responsibility as an
agency to implement the act of Congress. That is your
responsibility, is it not?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes, sir, it is.
The Chairman. Then why do you run when someone threatens to
sue you?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, we don't run.
The Chairman. You write a regulation that is contrary to
what the Congress intended to do.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, we hope that these
regulations are not contrary to the intent of Congress. We
didn't believe they were. We believe that we implemented the
law, but we had to address all the issues that were raised on
the record.
The Chairman. My time is about up. What defense do you
have, including your lawyers, about the bears, and how many are
there that have been dead--why cannot we import those bears if
they are legally taken under Canadian law, receive the moneys
that we would receive from them, put it into polar bear
research? Who insists upon not allowing those dead bears in? I
can understand the future bears, but I cannot for the life of
me understand a bunch of dead bears laying away in the closet,
and who is going to sue you over a dead bear? I would love to
take that case, by the way. And I am not a lawyer and I would
win it. Some of you lawyers don't believe it. I would win that
hands down. Who is going to sue you?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, it is probably better
that I not speculate about who might sue us.
The Chairman. I would like to know, because someone told
you or someone told Katie McGinty or someone told Bruce Babbitt
that you are going to be sued. Now who threatened to sue you?
Mr. Marshall Jones. We have no formal threats of
litigation.
The Chairman. Then why do you worry about it?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, we are allowing the
import of bears already taken from all the populations which in
our judgment meet the criteria of the law, and we will allow
the import of further bears from every other population which
meets the criteria in the law.
The Chairman. But what I am suggesting is what is the
objection of a bear that was legally taken. Why not allow that
bear to be taken by that hunter, bring into the United States,
pay the $1000 fine, fee, whatever you want to do, pay it? Why
not? I mean, what is the rationale for not doing that?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, personally I agree. What
you have said makes perfect common sense. Mr. Chairman, however
it is not what we believe the law requires. We have to make
these judgments about the criteria and whether it came from a
population which----
The Chairman. My time is up, but one last one. Where does
it say in the law, lawyer--you are getting paid for this. Where
does it say in the law that you can be sued by allowing the
importation of pre-killed 1994 bears?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, it says nowhere in the
law.
The Chairman. Well, then you said the law wouldn't allow
you to do it.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, I say that our duty was
to implement the law and apply the criteria that were in it,
and it was our judgment--Mr. Chairman, we made a proposal based
on the way we wanted to read the law.
The Chairman. It wouldn't change that.
Mr. Marshall Jones. We made a final rule based on what our
final judgment, this is what the law really says with all of
its requirements.
The Chairman. Where does it say that you cannot import
those bears, Mr. Lawyer?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, it says that they----
The Chairman. I am talking to your--you have got legal
counsel there. You are paying them enough. Where does it say--
in fact, the original proposal of the rule said you could and
would allow the importation of pre-killed 1994 bear, every one
of them. Now where and who suggested the change and on what
grounds?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, let me ask Mr. Young from
our solicitor's office to----
The Chairman. That is what I am saying. Where did it come
from?
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To answer your
substantive question, the reason the Fish and Wildlife Service
found that it could not allow importation of non-approved
populations, even for the pre-amendment bears, is because one
of the criteria that we have to find before issuing permits
says that Canada has a sport hunting program based on
scientifically sound quotas, ensuring the maintenance of the
affected population stock to a sustainable level----
The Chairman. OK, stop right there. You are telling me if
the species is sustainable and the Canadian government verifies
that, all right, that the bear kill prior to 1994 effects the
sustainable yield of the bear population?
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, that is not the particular
criteria that we had to find here.
The Chairman. Well, I am--again, I am trying to get back to
what grounds are you worried about allowing those 1994 pre-
killed bears into the United States?
Mr. Young. We basically were not in a position to say that
for the shared populations, Baffin Bay, Davis Strait and
others, certainly South Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin, they are
shared stocks.
The Chairman. What difference does it make? This bear is
dead. He doesn't even--I mean, this bear is no longer existing.
It is a hide. It is a nothing. It is $1000 for polar bear
research.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, that distinction was not made on
the face of the statute.
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman. Boy, I will tell you, this is like dealing
with the doughboy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as your time is up,
would you like some help?
The Chairman. Yes, would you like--yes, Mr. Neil.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you. Gentlemen, I think you have
gotten yourself into a bind here. You are not really answering
the Chairman's question, or maybe you are and that is part of
our difficulty. Your assignment was not to try and find ways
that this couldn't be done. Your assignment really was to see
how this could be implemented. Now I can see how you could
answer the Chairman saying well, how does a dead bear affect
this adversely. You could say well, that bear was alive, it
could have been part of a procreation process, that this dead
bear and all the other dead bears were part of a process which
was antithetical to the aims of the legislation and apparently
antithetical to the Canadian management program, because by
killing these bears you were preventing reproduction and so on
and so forth.
But all the testimony that I see is to the exact opposite.
There is an increase in the number of bears. Now maybe not in
every region. Again, I can understand how you would do--
possibly do regions and some may be sustaining themselves and
reproducing maybe in excess in some regions and not in others,
but you also testified that the Canadian plan--I don't know the
word was excellent or what it was, but it was the finest plan.
If there is no showing that the population is being
reduced, if there is no showing that the Canadian management
plan is not adequate to the task at hand, and if the management
plan is consistent with international agreements and it doesn't
contribute to any illegal trade, then at least on the question
of those bears which are already taken, it seems to me the
importation should have proceeded at pace.
Now if the counsel could answer that question. I am unable
to understand from the answer you gave why there is no
importation if the points that I just raised are factual and a
reasonable summation of the situation.
Mr. Young. Thank you. I will attempt to give a more
complete answer. Essentially taking the examples of the
populations I have mentioned, South Hudson and Davis Strait and
Foxe Basin, those populations are shared between the Northwest
Territories and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec as well as
Labrador. The situation we faced was the fact that there are no
enforceable quotas in either of those provinces. It is true the
Northwest Territories has a managed program based on a
scientific basis on quotas, but the population in its entirety
does not. We felt that did not meet the requisite criteria as a
prerequisite to issue permits.
Mr. Abercrombie. OK, stop there. Then what you are saying
is the Canadian management program is not scientifically sound
and does not establish either quotas or other criteria that
would allow for the importation of bears. You are saying the
Canadian program is not adequate, but you are relying on, if I
understand your testimony correctly, their submission of data
to you.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Abercrombie, if I could answer your
question.
Mr. Abercrombie. Please.
Mr. Marshall Jones. And it might be helpful to take a
specific example. Baffin Bay, we have a map here, Mr.
Abercrombie and Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Abercrombie. I can see it in part.
Mr. Marshall Jones. [continuing]--which shows the 14
existing new polar bear management areas.
[The map may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Marshall Jones. Baffin Bay is one of the areas which we
did not yet approve. The population in the Baffin Bay area
right now is judged by the data provided by Canada to be
declining. And we have indications that there is concern within
Canada about that population, not because of things happening
in Canada, but because that population is shared with Greenland
where there are no quotas right now.
So, Mr. Chairman, that is an example of an area where there
is substantial hunting, where there are many bears that have
been taken in the past but because the law, finally, makes no
distinction about when the bear was taken--the law requires
that we make the same finding whether the bear was taken in the
past and is already dead or whether the bear is going to be
taken next year. We still have to make the same finding, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Abercrombie. All right, you say that, but believe it or
not, I spent some time reading theology and you are making a
theological statement there. If someone wants to sue you on
that basis, I mean, that is part of your job. Let them go ahead
and sue, but that really is a theological--this is Aquinas and
Erasmus arguing and meanwhile there are poor people outside the
church. That to me--you already--it doesn't make sense. You
have already set up the criteria with respect to sustainability
of the polar bear population in--is it five of the 12 or eight
of the--I have forgotten.
Mr. Marshall Jones. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Abercrombie. You have already set up criteria, is it
five of the 12 or eight of the----
Mr. Marshall Jones. Five of the 12 have been approved so
far.
Mr. Abercrombie. Five of the 12, so you just move ahead in
that. And as far as--and what I meant by theology is that dead
bears, maybe that is true, but to reach back in effect to me is
ex post facto. Then don't allow them to come in from Baffin
Bay. You have already said that the way you are going to
implement this is to do it region by region, right? Then just
move ahead and do it and let the dead bears come in. That would
save yourself a lot of grief. If somebody doesn't like that,
let them sue you or something. That is what we have got--you
have got lawyers that are paid seven days a week to deal with
that. You have to have--and I am very jealous.
I will tell you I am jealous of legislative prerogative. I
realize that these days everything wants to move to the
executive. We want the king--everybody has to bow to the king.
That is one of the reasons I am allowing the commoner to sue
the king. I think that is democracy, but the legislature, for
good or for ill, we are all in this body here, the members
sitting at this table here, are here because we are elected by
our constituents. And we are here to try and do the job. And I
have been on the winning side and the losing side of
legislative issues, as has the Chairman and every Member here.
But I certainly expect, having given my best effort, that the
legislative intent is going to be obeyed absent some ruling to
the contrary by competent authority.
Now I don't think it is the business of--and I have been
supportive of the Department of the Interior and Fish and
Wildlife in every way that I possibly can be, because I think
you have a tough job and a national question, national
standards to maintain over and above regional considerations.
And that is not always easy to do.
But in this particular instance it seems to me you have
done the job clearly adequately, but now you are getting into
the minutia, virtually theological in nature, of
differentiation that may be of concern to theologians, but has
the practical consequence of actually undermining the
legislative intent, at least--at the very least with the
question of those bears that have already been taken and in
those areas where you have already made a determination that
you think you understand what the sustainable population
criteria has to be and that bears can be taken there.
Now if somebody wants to argue about Baffin Bay and perhaps
one or two other areas that you have in mind, that is a
separate issue that shouldn't prevent you from having the bears
come in from the other areas where there is a sustainable
population. Isn't that a reasonable position?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, what you have said and what the
Chairman said previously, I told you, I agree makes common
sense, but it also is contrary to the specific language of the
law which tells us regardless of when the bear was taken,
whether it is already dead, whether it has been taken in a
future year----
Mr. Abercrombie. Well, then----
Mr. Marshall Jones. [continuing]--still have to make the
same----
Mr. Abercrombie. Well, OK, I disagree with that. I think we
should move ahead in some other--just let me finish this. If
that was the case, because of the length of time, I don't think
it is fair. And I think over this time--I guess this was passed
when you were Chair, before Mr. Miller became Ranking Member.
The Chairman. No, no, Mr. Studds was the Chair.
Mr. Abercrombie. Excuse me, Mr. Studds was Chair. This is
not a partisan issue here in this Committee, at least I think I
can state that for the record. Because of the length of time
that passed, I think you should have informed whoever was Chair
of the Committee that the legislative intent was being
undermined by your interpretation of the language of the bill
as written and that it was going to be very difficult for you
to implement the legislative intent because of the language,
whether by default or design. To come to the Committee at this
stage and say the language as written prevented us from doing
what you sought to get done, OK, that is our fault if that
happened. But it is up to you as the implementors--and this is
a well-established legislative process, legislative standard.
Legislators are not supposed to write rules and
regulations. If we did that we would be here 365 days and
nights a year and you would be writing legislation as long as
your arm. We are to establish the policies and the intentions,
and it is your job to put in the rules and regulations. If you
think in good faith that the language put forward and the
legislative intent inherent in that language disenables you
from establishing rules and regulations which will carry out
that intent, it is up to you to get back to the Committee and
let them know that, not go three years and then come up and say
well, this is the only way we can do it, it is too bad you guys
didn't do a good legislative----
The Chairman. The gentleman is absolutely correct. The
thing that irritates me most, you--maybe not you personally,
but the agency, both agencies, supported the language as we
wrote the bill. You supported it and said it would work. It was
our intent to import those dead bears and to improve the stock
of the remaining bears. And we have done part of that thanks to
Canada and the Eskimo people in Canada. But this is ridiculous.
I mean, I have yet to hear anybody justify not allowing the
dead bears in. This has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever
heard in my life, that you are going to punish the Canadian
people, disrespect the Congress, because you won't import dead
bears that no longer can do anything. I mean, I say this is why
we have a real problem with government today, is you.
The gentlelady.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that you
agree with the common sense stated by Mr. Abercrombie and the
Chairman. And God forbid we ever use common sense in
government, I guess.
You made a statement, Mr. Jones, and I wrote it down and I
am anxious to see the transcript of this hearing, because I
wondered when you said it if it was a Freudian slip. You said
we based the final rule on what we wanted the law to say. And I
just couldn't help but think that that must be a Freudian slip
because we are running into that a lot.
Yesterday we had a hearing on the process, the procedure
before declaring the Escalante--before the President declared
Escalante a national monument, and their testimony yesterday
was that there was a leak to the press nine days before the
declaration was made and that they did adequate communicating
with members of the delegation from Utah and all the people in
Utah in those nine days to make that good policy.
The thought came to me--I couldn't get that out of my mind
last night, because we are talking about different things. It
seems that the--under Mr. Rashid--I am talking about him maybe
more than I am you right now, at least in my assessment of
that, that maybe it appeared you guys didn't think we were
going to be here another two years and so you could--you didn't
have to implement the things that we wanted to be done. And I
am not asking for verification or denial or anything. These are
just, you know, thoughts that have come to me because of all of
these problems we have faced. It is not just this rule. It is
many rules throughout the entire Interior Department.
And I think that, judging from what I see, the problem lies
more in the Interior Department than it does in Agriculture,
than it does in most of the other departments. I don't
understand that exactly, but I thought, you know, the three
branches of government were established for a good reason. And
Mr. Abercrombie referred to this. The Legislative Branch is to
pass the laws. The Judicial Branch is to interpret the laws,
and the Executive Branch is to administer the laws. But when
the Executive Branch doesn't use common sense, as you say you
didn't, or chooses to ignore the legislative intent, then they
are constitutionally violating their role, which is to enforce
the law.
And I think we have to--we, the Congress, the Republicans,
the Administration, we have got to start talking to each other
about the same thing, about our role, and we have got to start
developing some trust with one another, because we are going to
be working together for a long time. And these are serious
issues and these are about our country and our people. I guess
I have rambled on long enough.
What happens when this sort of abuse occurs is then that
forces the Congress' hand to change a law that might be a good
law and nobody wins, because like Mr. Abercrombie said, we
should not be putting things that are in rules and regulations
into law. That is too inflexible. It is too hard to get an act
of Congress. We shouldn't have to do that in order to get the
will of the Congress forced.
So I just ask you as far as you can--I realize the whole
thing is--you know, you are not the top guy on the totem pole.
I know that, but please try harder.
Mr. Abercrombie. Would you yield a moment?
Mrs. Cubin. You bet.
Mr. Abercrombie. In that context, I have the criteria. Can
it be explained to me again why hasn't there been the
importation of those bears already taken? Because I have the
law right in front of me and it specifically says that that is
to be one of the things that is to be done. And if the law as
we wrote it was unclear, which of the five points in it do you
think needs to be rewritten, and if so, how?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, if I could first address the issue
that was raised regarding common sense. I hope the record----
Mr. Abercrombie. I didn't bring up common sense.
Mr. Marshall Jones. No, sir, I understand.
Mr. Abercrombie. I took too long to do that. I was being
theological.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I simply wanted to make the point
that I hope the record shows what I intended to say and what I
think I said was the proposed rule was based on the way we
wanted to read the law. The final rule, we believe, is the
way--is based on the way the law is really written. That was
the distinction.
Mr. Abercrombie. OK.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Now, sir, in terms of the criteria,
there is one that is sort of buried in the paragraph above that
talks about the hunter must show proof that the bear was
legally taken. Then there are Roman numerals, one, two, three
and four. And particularly for Roman numeral two, the statement
that there is a sport hunting program based in scientifically
sound quotas ensuring the maintenance of the affected
population stock at a sustainable level, that has been the one
that has been most difficult for us, because, Mr. Abercrombie,
as I mentioned, for example, for Baffin Bay----
Mr. Abercrombie. Yes.
Mr. Marshall Jones. That is a population which data from
Canada clearly shows right now is declining and one which we
have information that has been provided to us from Canada that
indicates they are concerned, that they find that disturbing.
The reason is not because of what is happening in Canada, and
that is why I say again Canada's management overall is very
good, but in that case of that particular population, on the
Greenland side they don't have quotas.
Mr. Abercrombie. Well, then why can't you just
differentiate those areas and don't allow for importation
from--that would send a message to the Canadians or to anybody
else.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Well, sir, in fact what we did was we
said we cannot approve that area right now because the bears go
back and forth.
Mr. Abercrombie. Now why not the others? You would allow
broad discretion in this law, very broad discretion. And I
think you could have put it together. I am not trying to pick
on you folks, but in some respects--and I was being entirely
facetious when I brought up the theological argument. It is
possible to make a distinction without a difference. And I
think you are making distinctions here without a difference in
terms of thwarting the effect of what the law is supposed to
do.
At some point--you say Canada's sport hunting program is
based on a scientifically sound quotas ensuring the maintenance
of sustainable population on the whole. On the whole, if I
understood your testimony correctly, and I have to take you at
your word in it, Canada is doing that. Is that a fair
statement?
Mr. Marshall Jones. On the whole, yes, sir, but we cannot
say that all areas in Canada fit----
Mr. Abercrombie. That is not what the law--I won't go on
and on with it, but that is not what the law says it has to be
in all areas. And we are giving you that leeway. We are not
trying to write rules and regulations for individual regions or
provinces in Canada, but you have that power. You have the
power to do that. All I am saying is that I think, and I will--
and if Mrs. Chenoweth would allow me the--and Mrs. Cubin would
allow me to steal into their time----
The Chairman. The lady's time is up and it is Mrs.
Chenoweth's time now.
Mr. Abercrombie. Well, could I have 30 seconds of your
time?
The Chairman. Would you restart that, please. Go ahead.
Mrs. Chenoweth, will you yield to the gentleman?
Mr. Abercrombie. Would you yield me 30 seconds?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you. You could have, and still can,
I think, deal with the question of those trophies that have
already been taken unless you can show they were illegally
taken. And I think you could by the use of the system that you
set up to regard certain areas as being--as fulfilling all of
these five criteria, move forward at least in those areas with
the ability for Americans to be able to take these trophies and
bring them back to America. And I think that you would--and if
we need then to clear up language with respect to the rest of
it, I think certainly the Chairman would be open to those
suggestions. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, and I am happy--I just want to
make a couple of statements, and then I am happy to yield my
time back to the Chairman to dispense however he wishes.
I appreciate the brilliant questioning from the gentleman
from Hawaii, but I do want to say that I find very little, a
very thin nexus--I don't find a nexus at all in the rationale
we heard today from these witnesses. And Aquinas is a very fine
work, Summa Theologica. I am not Catholic, but I recommend
anybody read it. It is an outstanding work. There is no nexus
here, though.
I am as amazed as anyone else in this listening audience
that we could see the will of Congress thwarted by the
rulemaking process, but I would like to yield back the balance
of my time to the Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady, and I will yield to
the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Norwood.
Mr. Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
looking forward to this. Mr. Jones, are you an attorney?
Mr. Marshall Jones. No, sir, I am not. I am a biologist.
Mr. Norwood. Mr. Chairman, are our witnesses under oath?
The Chairman. No.
Mr. Norwood. Be careful, because I am very interested in
your answers to some questions I want to ask you. How many
polar bear--I am no attorney either, so, you know, don't worry.
How many polar bear trophies are now in storage in Canada?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, we don't have a way to know that.
We have inquired with Canada. They cannot give us a number. We
have heard various numbers, but I am not in a position to
verify how many there are.
Mr. Norwood. Well, will you do a best guess.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Probably several hundred, but I can't
say beyond that.
Mr. Norwood. Have any of those trophies been imported from
Canada since 1994?
Mr. Marshall Jones. No, sir, not yet.
Mr. Norwood. So nothing has happened since 1994 when
Congress passed a law indicating, and incidentally signed by
the President, indicating pretty clearly that one of the things
we wanted to do was to allow our constituents who had polar
bears in freezers in Canada to be able to bring them home.
Would you--just between me and you, would you sort of agree
that is what the 103rd Congress was trying to say?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I am not sure if I want to try to
comment on the underlying intent. What I can comment upon is--
--
Mr. Norwood. I insist!
Mr. Marshall Jones. [continuing]--what the law says.
Mr. Norwood. You have to understand the intent to write a
rule or regulations. I insist you comment on what you thought
Congress was trying to do.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, we read the law on its face and we
read the Committee report, and we drew our conclusions from
what was on the record.
Mr. Norwood. All right, now we have Federal laws. I am just
trying to figure this out. We have Federal laws and generally
they are written by a Congress who have attorneys advising
them. And what you are saying is that the lawyers in Congress
didn't understand the statute they were writing, but only your
attorneys could interpret the statute that we wrote, is that
what you are saying?
Mr. Marshall Jones. No, sir.
Mr. Norwood. Well, tell me how is it that you say you had
to write these rules and regulations because your attorneys
told you X, Y, Z? You wrote these based on what your lawyers
told you.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, we based our decision to prepare
the regulations based on all the advice that we got from
lawyers and others that we needed a regulatory process----
The Chairman. Who are the others? Who are the others?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Within the agency, those that we
consulted with.
The Chairman. If we have to, I will subpoena all the
records of your rulemaking and find out who the others are
within the agency. Who in the agency?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, the staff who worked on it----
The Chairman. And no one else----
Mr. Marshall Jones. [continuing]--myself and others.
The Chairman. No one else contributed to your decision?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I couldn't give you a list today
of all those who were involved, but there were a number of
people who were involved in the decision.
The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for an additional
five minutes.
Mr. Norwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You wrote and you
have said that you wrote these rules based on your
interpretation of the law, which you viewed as a better
interpretation of the law than Congress' interpretation of the
law. Now that is what you said in terms of your rules, is that
right?
Mr. Marshall Jones. No, sir. We didn't say that ours is
better. We didn't say that we had a comment on Congress'
intent. We read the law. The law says that we can allow polar
bear trophies into the United States if we make certain
findings.
Mr. Norwood. OK, let us try it this way. Maybe you didn't
say anything. Your actions prove to me that you believe that
your attorneys interpreted the law of Congress better than the
attorneys of Congress' interpretation of the law. Let us just
be honest with each other. Common sense, do you suppose we are
trying to get these polar bears back home? What do you think?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Norwood. Good, that is a great move in the right
direction. That is what Congress and the President wanted to do
when the law was passed. Now I am sympathetic with you, because
I think you understand what this is all about and somebody
somewhere has put pressure on you to say no, we are going to
write these rules to suit, and the Chairman keeps trying to
find out to suit who. Who is so important about our laws that
they override Members of Congress? Who is it?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, it was not our view that the
regulations over--were overriding the intent of Congress or the
views----
Mr. Norwood. You know they were. Come on, give me a break.
You know. You just said what we wanted to do. Who got to you?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, we published a proposed rule. What
I said was we published a proposed rule based on the way that--
--
Mr. Norwood. Doing the opposite of what Congress wanted to
do, and you know that was the opposite of what Congress wanted
to do. And I am in sympathy with you, but who got to you? Who
made you do that?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, no one made us do it. We made a
decision based on the whole record. I did mention we received
comments from the Marine Mammal Commission. We received
comments from others that pointed out to us that the law did
not make a distinction between the bears that were already dead
and the bears that could be taken in the future, and that we
had to apply the same criteria.
Mr. Norwood. I presume you won't answer the question. Let
me ask you this, because you said this in your testimony, that
you are not prepared to change these rules. Regardless of what
we do in Congress now to throw out your rules, you are going to
come back with the same rules, but you will negotiate.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, based----
Mr. Norwood. Now you said that and it is in the record.
Basically you said it doesn't matter what we do, these are
going to be the rules we are going to stay with, but you would
negotiate. For whom would you negotiate?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I didn't use the word negotiate.
What we said is----
Mr. Norwood. It is in the record, by the way.
Mr. Marshall Jones. [continuing]--we would work with you
and with the hunters and with Canada to get the data so that we
could approve as many populations as will meet the criteria
under the law. And that is fully what we are prepared to do.
Mr. Norwood. Well, let me just for the record--Mr.
Chairman, we have a conservation plan for Alaska written by the
Service, and I quote, ``a polar bear trophy legally killed in
Canada in the past or from current approved populations may be
brought into the United States by the hunter once final
regulations are developed.'' Everybody, I think, that can walk
and chew gum knows that is what we were trying to do.
Now lastly, if I may, just out of curiosity, if the Fish
and Wildlife Service believes polar bear hunting if properly
overseen can contribute to proper polar bear conservation, do
you believe that?
Mr. Marshall Jones. I do, sir.
Mr. Norwood. Good, I do, too. Why is it that this was not
addressed in your polar bear conservation plan goal?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I am not sure that I can comment--
--
Mr. Norwood. Why didn't you address the issue of hunting
and how well that improves conservation in your goals you set
out, in your conservation plan?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, since I wasn't involved in the
preparation of the document, I am not the best person. I don't
think we have someone here today who can comment on that.
Mr. Norwood. I am sure your agency will be glad to give us
an answer in writing.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Mr. Norwood. Is there anybody that you know in your agency
that you might be willing to categorize as anti-hunting?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I have no way of knowing who might
be anti-hunting or pro-hunting.
Mr. Norwood. Can we take a survey? How do we find that out?
I would know in my office if I had people that were anti-
hunting.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, that is not a criteria for
employment. The Fish and Wildlife Service is in favor of sport
hunting. I am personally in favor----
Mr. Norwood. It seems to be, though, a criteria for writing
rules that differ from the intent of Congress.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, we don't----
Mr. Norwood. We think there is something that stinks about
this very bad, and the Chairman pointed it out and I want to
reemphasize this isn't so much about polar bears. This truly is
about freedom and it is about American's freedom. That is what
this really is all about. And it is about Federal agencies who
thwart their nose at Congress saying we know better so we are
going to write rules regardless of what your intent in the law
is.
My last question, Mr. Chairman. You have said, as I
understand it, and I just want to know something about it, that
you have approved five of the 12 management areas, is that
correct?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Norwood. Does that mean--when you say approved, does
that mean that approved for hunting and the deportation of the
bear back into this country? Is that what that means?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Not approved for hunting. That is a
decision entirely of Canada, but we--by approved I mean we have
made the determination that those five populations meet the
criteria that are established in the law and import is allowed
into the United States now for bears taken in any one of those
five populations.
Mr. Norwood. How does Canada feel about the conservation in
those five areas? Surely you know. In those 12 areas, how do
the Canadians feel about it?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I----
Mr. Norwood. I mean, you don't want them imported back into
this country in hopes that we won't go up there and hunt them.
Obviously you feel the conservation efforts in those other
seven management units aren't real good. How does Canada feel
about it?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I would not presume to speak for
Canada. I don't think it is fair for me to characterize. What I
can say is we consulted with Canada. They provided us with
their data and we used their data to make our decisions. The
law asked us to make the decisions, and so we made the decision
that five of the 12 areas meet the criteria. In addition, sir,
we have got new information regarding additional areas, and two
additional areas we are now working on a finding which----
Mr. Norwood. State that new information for me, please.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Beg your pardon, sir?
Mr. Norwood. State that new information that you have.
Mr. Marshall Jones. The new information was that they took
one of their large units and divided it into smaller units,
into more bite-sized chunks. And those--two of those smaller
units, Mr. Chairman, we believe now looks very likely that they
meet the criteria under the law and we are going to publish a
proposed finding regarding that very soon.
Mr. Norwood. Did you base your data on 1993/94 data to come
up with your rules and regulations?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, we used 1993 and '94 data
supplemented by additional information where it was relevant.
Mr. Norwood. What about the last--the data from the last
three years, what has that shown for non-approved populations?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, the situation in each population
may be a little different. And in some cases, as we discussed
previously, the issue is the fact that there is a lack of
quotas for control of the polar bear take in areas that are
shared with either another province besides the Northwest
Territories in Canada or with Greenland.
Mr. Norwood. Well, would new data improve our situation
over five of 12?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir----
Mr. Norwood. I mean, your data at five of 12 management
units, in my understanding, is based on 93/94. Now we are some
three years later and we have new data. Will the new data give
us ten out of 12, for example?
Mr. Marshall Jones. No, sir. We have looked at that, the
new data that is available so far, and what we have been able
to determine so far is that there are two additional areas
which very likely will meet the criteria. And we are prepared
to publish our finding that lays out the reasons for that very
soon. For the other areas, sir, there still are issues--all the
data that is available to us right now does not tell us that
they meet the criteria under the law.
Mr. Norwood. One final closing comment. You have been very,
very kind, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to tell you as a
friend that you have written these rules based on the fact that
somebody has said well, if we don't write them this way we are
going to get sued. And I can almost guarantee you you are going
to get sued either way, which is not your job to worry about
that. You job is to implement the intent of Congress. And if
you don't change these rules, you are going to get sued too, so
don't worry about being sued.
And I just want you to know that I only have one polar bear
from the 10th District of Georgia, but as long as I can breathe
air I am coming after this situation till you change it,
because you are tramping on the freedoms of Americans and
Members of Congress.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your patience.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Norwood.
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes, go ahead.
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chair, may I have a point of personal
privilege?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mrs. Cubin. I would like to first tell these gentlemen that
my parents taught me you never talk about someone while they
are in the room, you talk to them, but I have to violate that
because I don't know where we are. I don't know where this
leaves us. Where are we? Three alternatives have been brought
forward by the Department. One of them is that we can change
the law again.
The Chairman. Which they would not sign.
Mrs. Cubin. Oh.
The Chairman. I can just about guarantee you that. Whoever
is behind this would never allow it to be signed, but go ahead.
Mrs. Cubin. OK, so--all right, so I just want to know what
are our options. I think that we have made it clear how we feel
about what the intent of this is, what the intent of the
legislation was. Could somebody tell me how do we get that
intent implemented?
The Chairman. No one can really tell because they don't
want to do it.
Mrs. Cubin. Well----
The Chairman. Go ahead and answer.
Mrs. Cubin. How can we----
The Chairman. Before you do that, just let me interrupt for
a moment. Two things occurred to me. This is Monday, July 17,
1995. The notice announces proposed legal and scientific
findings for the importation of polar bears, including ones
taken but not imported prior to the enactment of the 1994
amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The purpose is
to find that Northwest Territories and only the area in Canada
currently allows sport hunting has monitored enforced sport
hunting programs that ensures polar bears are legally taken
consistent with the purpose of the Conservation Act
scientifically, et cetera, et cetera. It says polar bears taken
in the Northwest Territory prior to the amendment through the
effective date of the final rule of the Service proposes they
issue permits. That is your statement. You recognize that?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, let me ask Mr. Stansell if he
recognizes that language.
The Chairman. That is yours.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Now we have a different proposal and we still
haven't--and by the way, I am officially requesting all
documentations, all correspondence, all input from every party
involved in these regulations, including any outside influence,
including other organizations. If you don't send it to me as
quick as possible, you will be subpoenaed. Is that understood?
Mr. Marshall Jones. We will provide you----
The Chairman. I mean every----
Mr. Marshall Jones. [continuing]--everything that we have.
The Chairman. Every little iota, all e-mail, all
correspondence, all memos, everybody involved in this
decisionmaking process. Secondly, let us--I am an old teacher.
Read the law. The Secretary may issue a permit for importation
of polar bear parts, other than the internal organs, taken in
sport hunts in Canada, including polar bears taken but not
imported prior to the date of the enactment of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1994 to the applicant which submits
with his permit application proof that the polar bear was
legally harvested in Canada by the applicant. Now you are
telling me the law, and you base the denial of importation on
the words--and I think it was two. Canada has a sport hunting
program based on scientificly sound quotas.
Now my old teaching tales tell me has is when and had is
when. I am referring to the bears killed prior to 1994. If that
word said had a sport hunting program, had a monitored program,
then you could in fact say you had a reason that it can't be
documented for importation of those bears. Has is prospective.
Now, lawyer friend, sitting at the table making big bucks, tell
me how you could base the law on any other interpretation?
Has is only to apply to the conservation units set up by
Canada and in fact scientifically studied and being promoted
for the continuation of the species. You can not apply has to a
dead bear.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, first of all, if I am making big
bucks, I would like somebody to show me where it says that on
my pay stub.
The Chairman. If you don't, you will.
Mr. Young. In answer to your question, the problem is not
with the first sentence of 104(c)(5). If the statute had
stopped there, we would have had full discretion to have issued
permits for any legally taken sport trophy. The problem was
with the subsequent language, which----
The Chairman. Which language?
Mr. Young. I am sorry?
The Chairman. Which language?
Mr. Young. The language in the first sentence where it says
the Secretary may issue a permit down to the point where it
says----
The Chairman. Including polar bears taken----
Mr. Young. [continuing]--legally harvested in Canada by the
applicant.
The Chairman. That is right.
Mr. Young. But the subsection continues such permit shall
be issued if the Secretary makes the following findings.
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. Young. Which are connected with an and, each one being
a mandatory criteria.
The Chairman. Now let me stress the word has and had. Has,
the intent of this Congress was prospective to protect the
polar bears, to help the Eskimo people and to make this thing
work. It does not apply--the has cannot apply to a dead animal.
It has been dead prior to 1994. If you want to solve this
problem with a pick, gentlemen, I am going to tell you how to
solve it. You give me my so many bears that have been legally
killed, applied for, and allow the importation, then we can
discuss the rest of it. Because there is no legal ground for
what you have done. I am not a lawyer, but I happen to be a
school teacher, and you tell me whether I am wrong with the has
and had. Had--if it said had, that would mean the bear has been
killed, had an--I would agree, but has is prospective.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, if I could respond to that, one of
the suggestions which was made during the formal comment period
was that we should look at every year from the day polar bear
hunting started in Canada and go through year by year and make
a finding that it was OK in 1973 from this population so
trophies can come in, but in 1974 it is not and then in '75 it
is OK again. For exactly the same reason, sir, that you have
just outlined, we made the decision that no, it doesn't ask us
to go back and look at each year. It asks us to make a judgment
exactly what you are saying, how Canada is today.
The Chairman. OK, before you go on let me--I am going to
let you get out of here because I know you have been here a
long time. Please listen to what I have to say on this. It was
the intent of this Congress that if in fact the permittee
applied to you, the Secretary of Interior, and Canada said this
bear was legally taken, it is a dead bear. That is a fact. You
could issue a permit for the importation of that bear. The
intent of this legislation was to protect the bear. Again I
want to stress this. You are dealing with something that is
impossible. You are protecting something that is gone and will
never return. If you want to protect the bear, then think of
the future.
I won't even argue the five areas. I think you are wrong. I
won't argue it right now. I think you are not listening to the
scientific information. I think the gentleman from Georgia is
absolutely correct, but if you insist on saying the Congress
did not intend, show me where the law says we did not intend.
And you can't. The lawyer can't show it to me. You can't show
it to me. It is not in writing. And I am going to suggest
respectfully you had better think about this very seriously,
because like Mr. Norwood said, this is wrong. I sat on that
Committee. Mr. Neil sat on that Committee and we knew what we
intended. And you knew what we intended and your lawyers agreed
with the bill that we passed. And I still want to know who the
others are.
Any other questions? You are excused, but you are not
forgotten. And you will be on my list until you are able to sit
in my office--and by the way, I suggest you set that up. You
better find a solution to this problem. You are excused.
I apologize to panel two. I am going to have some fun here.
Akeeagok, all right--I should be pretty good with that. I have
got a lot of my Eskimo friends in Alaska who want to hunt polar
bears, for those in the audience that smile and grin when
someone says something. When I am done, that will happen--the
Northwest Territories; Dr. William Morrill, Safari Club
International; Ms. Naomi Rose, Marine Mammal Scientist, Humane
Society of United States, Washington, D.C.; Mr. J.Y. Jones,
Dublin, Georgia.
And, Mr. Charlie Norwood, you are welcome to introduce your
friend from Georgia.
Mr. Norwood. My friend and constituent. Mr. Chairman and
members, I would like to introduce you to Dr. J.Y. Jones, who
also resides in the 10th District. He is an ophthalmologist in
Dublin, Georgia. J.Y. spends a great deal of his time, Mr.
Chairman, free time, doing two things, volunteering his medical
expertise in third world nations, and hunting, among other
species, polar bears. Most recently Dr. Jones has served as a
leader in working to reform the Marine Mammal Protection Act to
permit the import of locally harvested polar bear trophies from
Canada. It has been four years since Dr. Jones himself legally
took a polar bear in Canada, yet he has been unable to import
it.
And, Mr. Chairman, I feel like that anybody that is crazy
enough to hunt on ice ought to be able to bring his trophy
home. So with that I would like to welcome my friend Dr. Jones.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The Chairman. Dr. Jones, thank you for being here. I will
go in the order which I introduced you, though. The gentleman
from far, far away, Northwest Territories. Dave, you are up.
You are welcome. Welcome to America, and congratulations on
your efforts to try to preserve the polar bear and conservation
methods. Go ahead, sir.
STATEMENT OF DAVE AKEEAGOK, GRISE FIORD, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES,
CANADA
Mr. Akeeagok. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. [Inuktituk spoken] That in my language meant thank
you for inviting me and giving me a chance to speak. First of
all, I would like to let you know who I am. My name is David
Akeeagok. I am an Inuk from Grise Fiord, which is Canada's most
northern community. I am one of the Board of Directors for the
Iviq Hunters and Trappers Organization, which represents the
hunters and trappers interest in management of the wildlife.
Also all my life I have hunted for food, which includes polar
bear. Now that I live in the modern world, I also have a nine
to five job at the local government.
There are two main reasons why I came here to testify.
First is to let you know that sport hunting is an important
part of our social, economic and cultural livelihood. Also, if
I may be blunt, sir, we would like you to stay out of our
business and don't tell us how to manage our wildlife. We do
not desire to judge your system or tell you what to do.
We have a management system that is working very well and
we are proud of. What I don't understand is why when scientists
and us both work together and agree together to have a good
sound management agreement with our government, now it appears
your country disapproves it and are now telling us how to live
our lives.
Please, Mr. Chairman, I mean please, don't be the second
culture to try and control our wildlife again. We are losing
our faith and our self esteem in our culture when people from
the worlds of trees and the hot sun are trying to control our
lives.
We still live off the land for survival. We want to
continue this for our future generations.
In our eyes sport hunting is subsistence hunting, since we
do not increase quota or change current quota that is given to
us by our government. In saying that, we don't use the fur for
clothing as much as we used to, but now we can get non-Inuit to
come up and shoot for us. They can take the worthless parts. We
will keep the valuable part, which is the meat.
Also sport hunting is keeping our culture alive by a law
that a non-Inuk hunter must hunt a polar bear by using
traditional ways of hunting, which is dog team. And it is an
important part of our culture.
It is a very important part of our community economy also
because the money from the sport hunt that comes into the
community is very high. Currently it is the third highest
funding that comes into our community where we live in an
expensive place where now that we are in the modern world
everything has to be transported by plane or by an annual
sealift, which when I mean everything I mean modern day food
like hamburgers and that, which 50 percent is now coming in
from the south. A single sport hunter brings to the community
in around $20,000, and the money is shared all across the
community.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell you in 1994 when you approved the
law for importation of polar bears we said finally the United
States of America believed and recognized our management
system, which we are very proud of. But in 1997, which is now,
we feel you lied to us and betrayed us, and now we feel useless
and are asking ourselves what did we do wrong. And we hope to
get some answers.
Mr. Chairman, Kujanamik, niliatigonaqaagavigna, which I
mean--which I just said thank you for giving me a chance to
voice my concerns. And I will try to answer your concerns and
concerns of others while I am here in your country. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, David. And I will have a couple
questions for you. Dr. William Morrill, Safari Club
International.
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM MORRILL, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL,
HERNDON, VIRGINIA
Dr. Morrill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I come before this
Committee today to talk about conservation, about the best
large mammal sustainable use system in the world.
Theoretical conservation was something I learned in school,
but it is not the subject. Conservation on the ground in places
like Kane Basin and Resolute, conservation that involves people
and wildlife alike, that is what we are here to discuss,
conservation that cuts through theoretical considerations and
gets to the bottom line. Is it working? The answer for Canada
is yes. Conservation that cuts through recognizing the
elasticity of wildlife populations, but nonetheless has the
foresight to be conservative and to balance that with the
recognition that the resource will be used.
I am not here today to talk about why the Canadian system
won't work. I am here today to talk about that it does, maybe
imperfectly, but well enough to meet the four conditions U.S.
Congress put forth in the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. There is a question that has been asked by a
number of people, why not most, if not all, of the polar bear
areas that were open to quota imports when the Canadians
provided data that supported the harvest and export as outlined
in the law Congress passed.
The four conditions are the Canadians have a monitored and
enforced sport hunting program consistent with the agreement on
the conservation of polar bears. They meet condition number
one. The Canadian polar bear hunting program is based on
scientifically sound quotas, thereby meeting condition number
two. The export and import are based upon existing treaties and
conventions, thereby meeting condition number three. And the
regulations in the final rule make the legal trade impossible,
thereby meeting condition number four.
There are two additional outstanding attributes of the
Canadian system. The first is adaptive management. Adaptive
management is basically research while the resource is being
sustainably used. Canada has perfected that, and you can see
that by the discussions which have gone on so far today and I
think we will get into with questions. Central to adaptive
management is the need to monitor, resulting in both learning
and reducing uncertainty while resulting in adaptation of
management.
The second is the flexible quota system of Canada. It is an
example of using management flexibility. If an over-harvest of
bears occurs in one or more years, the following years quotas
are reduced and vice versa. This recognizes people within the
system of management in Canada.
In summary, the Canadian system is scientifically based,
rigorously monitored, strongly enforced, ecologically and
politically appropriate and flexible for good conservation of
the polar bear.
But, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service added two
additional conditions, first that any subpopulation or shared
population would need to have cooperative management agreements
in place between various governmental agencies. And this was
addressed, I think, by Congressman Jack Fields, who said prior
to the passage of this and for the record, ``let me first state
that it is not the intent of the language that the Secretary
attempt to impose polar bear management policy or practices on
Canada through the imposition of any polar bear import
criteria.''
The Inuit are very proud of their management, their
heritage as hunters and their ability to survive in the
harshest climate in the Earth. The point that becomes even more
vivid is the fact that the four conditions put forth by
Congress were met.
Data was provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
January of 1996 that would have allowed for a minimum of two
more areas and in fact would have allowed under Congress'
conditions for all but one of the areas to be opened. And yet
Congress took that--excuse me, Fish and Wildlife Service took
selective data on December 20, 1996, even beyond that time.
Sport hunting has reduced the number of polar bears
actually taken under the quota. It has provide conservation
incentive to the local people living there. Canada has met the
requirements that Canada placed upon importation of polar bear
parts under the 1994 amendments. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has, in fact, done exactly what Mr. Fields feared they
would, and approved only a fraction of the areas that would
have been approved if they had followed the direction given to
it by Congress. There was an injustice here. The injustice is
to Canada and her sustainable use program, to her people who
lives in the harshest environment of the world and to the great
white bear itself.
Safari Club asks you to intervene on their behalf once
again. Thank you very much.
[Statement of Dr. William Morrill may be found at end of
hearing.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor. Dr. Rose.
STATEMENT OF DR. NAOMI ROSE, MARINE MAMMAL SCIENTIST, HUMAN
SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Rose. Good morning. I am Naomi Rose, Marine Mammal
Scientist for the Humane Society of the United States. On
behalf of our four and a half million members and constituents,
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the
House Resources Committee, for inviting me here to testify on
the issue of polar bear trophy imports.
While the HSUS disagrees with many elements of the Fish and
Wildlife Service's final rule, we strongly agree with its
decision to defer approval of trophy imports for seven of the
12 polar bear populations in Canada. Therefore, we oppose
passage of House Joint Resolution 59, as we understand its
purpose is to disapprove the Service's current final rule with
the goal of gaining import approval for those seven populations
in a new final rule.
My testimony today deals principally with our concerns
regarding the scientific soundness of Canada's management
program. The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group issued several
resolutions in 1997. One affirmed the basic requirements for
sound conservation practices. These include accurate
information on: one, the number, location, sex and age of
harvested polar bears; two, geographic boundaries of
populations; three, size and sex age composition of the
population; and four, rates of birth and death for the
population. Canada's management program, at best, has accurate
harvest information. It may have the best information available
for two, three and four, but the best available information is
not necessarily accurate.
Regarding geographic boundaries, the boundaries for
Canada's polar bear populations are based on the radio
collaring of a relatively small number of female bears and
mark-recapture studies of bears from limited accessible areas,
resulting in non-random sampling biases. In most mammals,
females have smaller home ranges and are more sedentary than
males. It is clear that polar bear researchers still have a
very limited understanding of male ranging patterns and their
effect on gene flow between populations.
In addition, the geographic boundaries of the populations
are continually being revised. Just this past year, Canada
split Parry Channel, Baffin Bay and Queen Elizabeth Islands
into Lancaster Sound, Norwegian Bay, Kane Basin, Baffin Bay and
Queen Elizabeth Islands. There is reason to question the
biological basis for these changing boundary designations
because of the uncertainty regarding genetic exchange and the
question of reliability of small biased samples. In short, the
boundaries appear to be more a convenience for human managers
than a manifestation of actual biological processes in the
bears.
As for population estimates, sex-age composition and life
history parameters, polar bear habitat makes the collection of
accurate biological data extremely difficult. This is not a
reflection on the data collectors. It is an inherent
characteristic of the remote habitat and the species.
Especially for the northern populations that have been little
studied, population and life history data are poor. The Service
has correctly disapproved several populations for which data
are incomplete or for which Canada currently rates the
population estimates as fair or poor. Based on data through the
95/96 season, these populations include Gulf of Boothia, part
of Queen Elizabeth Islands, Baffin Bay, Davis Strait and
Southern Hudson Bay.
There are still many unknown or poorly described aspects of
polar bear life history and reproductive behavior. Much of the
known life history information comes from Western Hudson Bay.
This southern population, the most accessible to researchers,
demonstrates higher birth rates, shorter interbirth intervals,
and larger average litter sizes than other populations, all of
which suggests that it is increasing relatively faster or
declining less rapidly than other populations. In short, many
management model assumptions come from an apparently
nonrepresentative, best-case population, and using best-case
assumptions can easily lead to over harvesting.
Another factor influencing the Service's disapproval of
several populations is that these populations cross national
and provincial boundaries and joint management agreements are
not yet in place. For example, Canada and Greenland will not
finalize negotiations on joint management agreements until they
complete research involving their shared populations, including
Parry Channel/Baffin Bay. Given the lack of implemented joint
management agreements, the Service was correct in deferring
approval, as these populations do not yet have monitored,
enforced and demonstrably sustainable management programs.
I understand that the Safari Club and Dr. Jones, a fellow
witness here, believe that the Service was in error evaluating
the various polar bear populations in Canada separately rather
than as a whole. I believe this is one aspect of the situation
about which the HSUS might agree with them. The HSUS also
believes that Canada should have been evaluated as a whole
rather than as a series of management units. We base this
belief on a strict legal interpretation of the language of the
1994 amendments, which refers to Canada, not subpopulations
within Canada.
Yet both the Northwest Territories authorities and the
Service acknowledge that Ontario does not protect pregnant
females and females with cubs and Quebec's quota system is
fixed and guaranteed and is not based on current scientific
information. Thus, had the Service considered Canada as a
whole, it would not have been able to make the first two
statutory findings.
In conclusion, the HSUS believes the Service was correct to
disapprove imports from seven of the 12 populations in Canada,
as the management programs for these populations do not meet
the statutory requirements for being scientifically sound,
adequately monitored and enforced.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments. I am
prepared to answer any questions you may have.
[Statement of Naomi Rose may be found at end of hearing.]
The Chairman. Dr. Jones.
STATEMENT OF DR. J.Y. JONES, DUBLIN, GEORGIA
Dr. J.Y. Jones. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
I am J.Y. Jones, an ophthalmologist from Georgia. I am a
lifelong hunter, and I speak today on behalf of America's 80
million sportsmen and sportswomen. Thank you very much for
allowing me to testify in that capacity. And thank you,
Congressman Norwood, for introducing me.
I must identify the fact that I am a devout Christian,
having dedicated myself to Jesus Christ many years ago after
finding no real meaning in life apart from him. I mention this
to draw a significant parallel. I cannot disavow what I hold as
my core beliefs, for to deny them denies who I am. In the same
way, I am a hunter. I can trace my ancestry to soldiers who
fought in the Revolution and the Civil War. Our menfolk were
always hunters. I believe that all men are hunters in their
inmost being, but in my case the opportunity to hunt at a young
age cemented this innate aspect of my character into a dynamic
force.
I connect this with my Christian faith to draw the parallel
I mentioned. My faith in Christ is not what I do, but what I
am. So it is also with my hunting avocation. As our
Constitution declares that I have a right to the pursuit of
happiness within the rational constraints of the law, surely
this includes my right to hunt. My heritage is under siege
today, and the necessity of this hearing is proof of that.
I would like to tell the story of Dr. Michael Werner. Dr.
Werner was a general surgeon from Wyoming who hunted and
harvested a polar bear in Canada in 1990. In 1993 he developed
a type of brain tumor. He suffered through multiple brain
operations, but he died in 1995. He never saw his bear
imported.
Mr. Joe Cafmeyer from Michigan is now 84 years old. He has
waited for 24 years to import his polar bear.
Canada's Eskimos have already benefited from the 1994 polar
bear sport hunting amendments to the MMPA, though this cannot
be sustained unless the rules are dramatically improved. The
facts: the total harvest of polar bears has declined by about
106 bears per year since the law was changed. The value of
sport hunts to the Eskimos has increased by a factor of three.
I am here today to protest three major points. First, there
is the issue of grandfathering bears that are stored in Canada.
The final rule gives six excellent reasons why all these bears
should be approved for import. Paradoxically, ``based on
comments received and a review of the MMPA'', the Service then
disapproves these bears unless they were taken from an approved
population. One must ask the Service why Congress specifically
included bears already stored in Canada in the amendments to
the MMPA. Did they think Congress really expected hunters like
Joe Cafmeyer to select the population 24 years ago that would
be importable today? One couldn't do that with a 1996 hunt! The
answer is obvious. Congress intended to clear up the backlog of
stored bears. The Service has taken some bad advice in ignoring
this relevant fact.
Second, only five of Canada's 13 polar bear populations
were approved for import whether harvested in the past, present
or future. These disapprovals were based on two super-criteria,
neither mandated by Congress, those being that each
subpopulation be either stable or increasing, and that
comanagement agreements with other jurisdictions be in place.
The Service consistently refers to Canada's 12 polar bear
populations in the final rule.
At the February 1996 Polar Bear Technical Committee meeting
in Quebec City, which I attended, this key IUCN group approved
redrawing three old populations into four new populations. Only
two of these new populations are shared with Greenland, where
the Service has taken the unprecedented step of requiring as an
import criterion an agreement between two foreign governments.
The new Lancaster Sound population is entirely within
Canada and entirely within sustained yield. In some years past,
Lancaster Sound has been home to the largest number of total
sport hunts. While this population is mentioned, it is not
considered a new population for purposes of permit issue. The
Service had two representatives at that meeting in Quebec City,
but this new information failed to make the final rule. Later
data are included in the final rule in at least two other
instances. It appears that the Service wants to approve as few
polar bear import permits as possible.
Lastly, in virtually every communication I have had with
the Marine Mammal Commission, opposition was expressed to
Congress going around the waiver provision built into the
original law, a process which would have kept the MMC on center
stage. Throughout the rulemaking, the MMC has erected
barricades to obstruct importation of polar bear trophies as
mandated by Congress, bringing up repeatedly legalistic, non-
scientific questions that Congress by its action has already
answered. I believe this obstructionism sheds light on why so
much good data are ignored in the final rule. We need to remove
the MMC from the decisionmaking process when it comes to polar
bears.
Please consider these facts:
Congress intended for U.S. hunters to bring home polar bear
trophies stored in Canada, but that process has been
deliberately obstructed.
Congress intended approval of imports of all legally
harvested future polar bear trophies from Canada, but the
intent has been subverted.
Congress intended for the MMC to help expedite the process,
but they have instead obstructed the process.
Please do something to help us. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment.
[Statement of Dr. J.Y. Jones may be found at end of
hearing.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate your
decoration and your enthusiasm. You have been in it a long
time.
David, first let me say--is it Dave or David?
Mr. Akeeagok. David.
The Chairman. David. Let me first say that I am not to tell
you or your government how to manage your game. This is the
Administration who is trying to do it, an agency within the
United States Government. That is why we are having the
hearings today, to try to find out how they arrived at this
decision. But one of the things you said, I think, in your
testimony that is counteracted by Dr. Rose is that they claim
that sport hunting is not subsistence hunting. And you said
that sport hunting is subsistence hunting. Can you explain that
again.
Mr. Akeeagok. To us sport hunting is subsistence because,
for example, the government gives us in Lancaster Sound 25
bears for us to have. They give us--they say there are 25 bears
for you to eat. And we take that and say OK, we will take those
and then we say in a meeting, the whole community comes in and
says we will set aside this many for sport hunters for them to
take home to them, but we will keep the meat. So when a sport
hunter comes in and shoots that bear, he leaves the meat to us,
and that provides meat for us, which is subsistence hunting.
The Chairman. In reality what is happening, they are
pulling the trigger. They are taking the hair, which you can't
eat, and they are leaving you the meat?
Mr. Akeeagok. Yes.
The Chairman. That is subsistence.
Mr. Akeeagok. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right, now, another question. What if all
hunters stopped coming up there, what would happen to your
community?
Mr. Akeeagok. For now, we are relying on money, as in any
other world. If sport hunting stops, one third of the economy
will collapse, and those that have invested in their time to do
sport hunting will not be able to function.
The Chairman. When you hunt, sport hunting or most of your
quota of sport hunting, you don't hunt the sows or the cubs, do
you?
Mr. Akeeagok. No, sir.
The Chairman. You hunt the big boars?
Mr. Akeeagok. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Prior to sport hunting being allowed, did you
kill sows and cubs?
Mr. Akeeagok. Prior to the '50's that was the case, but
with the law that was agreed upon, sows and cubs were not
allowed. But if a sow has no cub, we are still allowed to hunt
those.
The Chairman. Well, anyway, David, I appreciate you coming
all this way, because this was our understanding, that in fact
it improved the population of the polar bear and was a
conservation method.
Dr. Rose, do you agree that the Inuits or the Eskimos have
a right to hunt subsistence?
Dr. Rose. The HSUS does not oppose subsistence hunting in
Canada or in Alaska.
The Chairman. He just explained subsistence hunting. Do you
agree with that interpretation?
Dr. Rose. I respectfully disagree with it, because although
the meat is left behind in the community, so is $20,000.
The Chairman. So what is wrong with that?
Dr. Rose. I am not--I don't think there is anything wrong
with them wanting to make a living. I certainly don't think
there is anything wrong with that, but----
The Chairman. It is the only thing available, so what is
wrong with it?
Dr. Rose. I have concerns about putting that much value on
the animal which makes--there is pressure there. I mean, you--
--
The Chairman. Now wait a minute now. The pressure----
Dr. Rose. There is pressure there to increase the----
The Chairman. How many are they allowed to shoot?
Dr. Rose. What is the quota?
The Chairman. Yes, what is the quota?
Dr. Rose. It is different for each population.
The Chairman. Now wait a minute. Let us use David.
Dr. Rose. 25.
The Chairman. OK, now where does the pressure come from?
They make a decision what shall be shot and not be shot, but
they put a value which is important to them, and they don't
kill the sows and cubs. They kill the big boars. Now what is
wrong with that principle?
Dr. Rose. The population estimates are based, as I said in
my testimony, on numbers that I consider to be not robust. And
if there is such a value placed on the animal, I have grave
concerns that there will be pressure on the managers to say
that there are in fact more bears in a population than there
really are. That has already been done. There was----
The Chairman. Where?
Dr. Rose. In--let me get this correct. In Davis Strait
there were believed to be 950 bears and the quota was 58 bears.
And the model that they said used that in order to sustain 58
bears there should really be 1400 bears in that population, so
they changed the number to 1400 bears. They came up with 450
bears because that was what the----
The Chairman. Did they kill 450 bears?
Dr. Rose. No, but the quota was only sustainable under
their model if there were 1400 bears, and they originally
thought there were only 950.
The Chairman. Let us get back to the permits. Did your
group or yourself individually contact the Fish and Wildlife on
this issue?
Dr. Rose. No, sir.
The Chairman. Nobody at all talked to them?
Dr. Rose. No, sir.
The Chairman. Nobody communicated to them, in fact, that
there was a possibility of a lawsuit?
Dr. Rose. Not to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Not to your knowledge?
Dr. Rose. Not to my knowledge.
The Chairman. All right, because I am going to get those
documents.
Dr. Rose. And I am the only mammal scientist at the HSUS
and I would have done it if anybody.
The Chairman. I realize that, but I am going to get the
documents, so the next time if there is any fingerprints----
Dr. Rose. We submitted comments, sir. We submitted comments
during the public comment period.
The Chairman. Oh, comments?
Dr. Rose. Yes.
The Chairman. All right, you submitted--there was no
contact, but you submitted comments?
Dr. Rose. I am sorry. I thought you meant outside of the
public comment process. I am sorry. I misunderstood you.
The Chairman. All right, at least we can get that part
straightened out.
Dr. Rose. We submitted three sets of comments.
The Chairman. Dr. Morrill, you are not an expert on polar
bears, are you?
Dr. Morrill. No, sir, I am not.
The Chairman. You base your testimony on?
Dr. Morrill. I base my testimony on the fact that I have 25
years experience as a wildlife biologist, that I am familiar
with sustainable use programs in three continents of the world
and have overseen different projects and programs pertaining to
sustainable use and wildlife management.
The Chairman. Would you say that the testimony that the
Fish and Wildlife presented today has any image of
conservation?
Dr. Morrill. I am sorry?
The Chairman. The testimony of the Fish and Wildlife, is
there any image of conservation in there?
Dr. Morrill. In what Fish and Wildlife Service was saying?
The Chairman. About the 100 bears--I am going to get back
to Dr. Rose, why she objects to the 100 bears coming in. I
don't understand, still don't understand that.
Dr. Morrill. I listened to--you can make conservation out
of anything. They were talking about regulation, and
conservation, of course, usually fits within regulation in some
form, but conservation occurs on the ground in the place where
the animals are involving the people where the animals are.
That is where conservation occurs. It doesn't, unfortunately,
occur in Washington, D.C.
The Chairman. Dr. Rose, again, are you supporting or
objecting to the importation of the dead bears?
Dr. Rose. This may surprise you, and if you do look at our
comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service, we actually--I will
be very honest with you, we just oppose the entire import
provision in the MMPA. We opposed it at the time. Again, the
record shows that. So we don't think any bears from Canada
should be imported into the United States. So what will
surprise you is to find that I do find that this final rule
which says that prior bears, you know, pre-amendment bears
can't come in but, you know, bears that have been approved--
populations that have been approved can come in but populations
that have not been approved can't come in, it does strike me as
being somewhat illogical.
The Chairman. It is not common sense, is it?
Dr. Rose. I am not disagreeing with that, however I do
oppose the whole permit import----
The Chairman. Oh, I understand where you are coming from
there, but the idea that the base says you can't import a dead
bear----
Dr. Rose. Our comments stated we felt that the amendments,
the language of the law, said that they did have to look at the
past history, the past conservation management history. They
disagreed with us. We disagree with them. I told you we didn't
agree with every element in the final rule at the beginning of
my testimony.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Wyoming.
Mrs. Cubin. I don't have any questions.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Idaho.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I just have a few questions.
And then I will yield back the balance of my time. Dr. Rose,
you mentioned that--on page 2 at the top of your testimony that
little is known about the sex differences and ranging behavior
and that males range more widely than females and that--on page
3, paragraph 2, you say part of the problem here is that many
contaminants from industrialized nations thousands of miles
away end up in the food chain in the Arctic where the polar
bear, as top predator, concentrates them in its tissue. That
may, may, result in the bears experiencing decreased fertility
or a diminished immune response. Are you positive? Do you have
scientific information to back up this allegation in your
testimony that the bears are experiencing decreased fertility
and a diminished immune response?
Dr. Rose. The whole point of my testimony, ma'am, is that
scientists are not sure about these things. I did say may, and
I am very careful to use that sort of language when we don't
have positive proof. Science very rarely does, but with polar
bears in particular the information is particularly non-robust,
in my opinion, and therefore it is the very potential for this
sort of thing that causes me concern. The precautionary
principle should apply.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You go on to state that given the
vulnerability of the Arctic ecosystem to environmental
degradation, which I really can't seem to put together,
including the potential for global warming to shrink the polar
bear's habitat.
Dr. Rose. Uh-huh.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now this seems to be reaching very, very
far in order to justify these people not being allowed their
trophy.
Dr. Rose. All of that testimony was simply to set the stage
for saying that the polar bear, and particularly because of its
marginal environment, because of its harsh marginal environment
and because of the threats that it is facing from, as I said,
the potential of things like global warming and contaminants,
organochlorines and pollutants, that this is a species that is
inherently unsuited to a frivolous sport hunt.
Mrs. Chenoweth. At the bottom of your testimony on page 5,
you indicate that in spite of all the global warming and all
the toxic stuff, that these industrialized nations are sending
thousands of miles away to influence their food chain and their
tissues and so forth, that increased sightings and encounters--
you admit to increased sightings and encounters which could
result in the redistribution of the population in question as a
result of more bears moving into an area frequented by hunters.
Now that is very, very inconsistent.
Dr. Rose. No, it is not, ma'am, because what I was saying
was that, for instance, global warming could be forcing the
population farther south. In other words, local hunters would
in fact see more bears, not because there were more bears but
because the bears that used to be farther north have now moved
south. So the numbers are the same, but the density has
increased.
Mrs. Chenoweth. People are seeing more bears, but we know
very little about it.
Dr. Rose. I am simply offering an alternate hypothesis that
the managers don't seem to be considering.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And your final part of your testimony,
which you did not offer verbally, was that Dr. Jones, who I
think is one of the finest witnesses that we have ever had
here, it reads Dr. Jones in his testimony viciously excoriates
the Marine Mammal Commission for its conduct on this issue.
Doctor, there is no way this gentleman could be vicious, no way
at all. And I think that this pie in the sky non-scientific
opinion is very little reason to oppose people being allowed--
before this rule came in, people being allowed to bring their
trophies into America. I think that we are just seeing a
personal opinion that is influencing, and I think we will find
that, influencing a policy that is sadly in opposition to that
which the Congress directed. I am very sad to see that. Someday
we are going to have to get back to the point where we deal
with realities and where we don't attack people like Dr. Jones.
I hope someday while I am still here in Congress that we are
dealing with facts and not opinions. Thank you, Mister--Madam
Chairman.
Mrs. Cubin. [presiding] I wanted to express my appreciation
to Dr. Jones for bringing up Mr. Werner. He is from my
community. I knew him all my life, and I do appreciate your
bringing up his memory.
Mr. Norwood, do you have questions?
Mr. Norwood. Yes, ma'am, I do. And some of these are yes
answers, please, for in terms of time. But first let me say,
David, that in your testimony you said our country disapproves
or your management system. And I want to just humbly tell you
that not everyone in our country does disapprove of your
management system. There are some people who do, but surely you
know many of us do not, too.
Ms. Rose, I am sort of interested in your written testimony
attacking my friend, Dr. Jones, too. And I have noticed that
you seem to imply that he is a pawn of the Sierra Club and that
he is this----
Dr. Rose. Safari Club, sir.
Mr. Norwood. Safari Club. And you seem to say that he is a
vicious individual, and I thought I would talk about that just
a minute, because, you know, I can't imagine what you are going
to call me when I try to defund the Marine Mammal Commission,
but probably worse than vicious. But just so--for the record,
my friend, who is a hunter and a conservationist, Dr. Jones, is
not just a member of the Safari Club. He is a member of the
National Rifle Association and the North American Hunting Club
and the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, the Grand
Slam Club, Quail Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, National Turkey
Federation, Foundation of North America Big Game, Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation, Middle Georgia Gunners Association,
Georgia Forestry Commission, Georgia Outdoor Riders
Association, National Wildlife Refuge Association, The Wildlife
Society.
And I would submit to you, madam, that those groups do more
for--pardon me, I am upset with you--with conservation in this
country than perhaps the Humane Society ever thought about
doing. It doesn't require a comment.
Now I want to just ask you some simple questions. Did the
Humane Society find that it was in agreement with the ruling
that the Wildlife Service has recently put out regarding polar
bears?
Dr. Rose. We agree with their decision to defer those seven
populations. We do not agree with their findings that the
Canadian sport hunt program is monitored and enforced in
agreement with the International Agreement on Conservation of
Polar Bears, and we don't find that it is scientifically sound.
Mr. Norwood. Well, would you have liked for them to have
been a lot tougher?
Dr. Rose. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Norwood. So you worked hard in order to try to make
sure that they did not really promulgate a rule that went along
with the intent of Congress, that you and your group knew a lot
more about all this than the people in this country who write
the laws. And there was no excuse in us doing what Congress
wanted to do when your group knew so much better. Was that the
approach?
Dr. Rose. No, sir.
Mr. Norwood. No?
Dr. Rose. We submitted comments, as we are allowed to do
under the democratic system, to submit public comment during
the public comment period when rules and regulations are
proposed. And we agreed with the Service's interpretation that
Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to make certain
findings. We disagree that--with their findings. We don't think
that the four findings they made were correct, and so in fact
we disagreed in that regard with the Service, and by the way,
with the Marine Mammal Commission.
Mr. Norwood. Well, so you are saying that the Humane
Society really felt that the Marine Mammal and Wildlife should
have gone a lot further and totally ignored the law passed by
Congress in 1994? That was--you have every right to submit
comments, but within your comments were you trying to push
these agencies to write rules and regulations that were
absolutely the opposite and went much further than Congress
wanted to have happen?
Dr. Rose. We were reading the statute on its face that said
that Congress had directed the Secretary of the Interior to
make certain findings. And we--in other words, it was up to the
Secretary to make those findings, to make those decisions. And
we disagreed with those decisions that were made.
Mr. Norwood. Is the answer yes or no? Did you push through
comment to try to get these agencies to undo what Congress
wanted to have done?
Dr. Rose. In our opinion, no, sir, we did not.
Mr. Norwood. There probably is a difference in opinion
there. Let me ask you this. Have you ever been to the Northwest
Territories of Canada to examine their polar bear management
program firsthand?
Dr. Rose. I am sorry, sir, could you repeat that, please?
Mr. Norwood. Have you ever been to the Northwest
Territories of Canada to examine their polar bear management
program firsthand?
Dr. Rose. No, sir, but I have been in communication with
the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Norwood. Do you know where it is based, the management
program?
Dr. Rose. In Yellowknife.
Mr. Norwood. In Canada?
Dr. Rose. Yes, sir.
Mr. Norwood. Where is it based?
Dr. Rose. In Yellowknife.
Mr. Norwood. I am asking you if----
Dr. Rose. I have been in contact with the biologists who
are in the Department of Renewable Resources, the Department of
Resources and Wildlife----
Mr. Norwood. Well, the next time you call them you will
probably want to know they have moved. Have you ever----
Dr. Rose. To Iqaluit, yes, sir.
Mr. Norwood. Have you ever attended one of the IUCN Polar
Bear Specialty Group meetings?
Dr. Rose. Again, no, sir, but I am in communication with--
--
Mr. Norwood. Are you a member of that body?
Dr. Rose. No, I am not.
Mr. Norwood. You mentioned in your testimony the ever-
changing boundaries of the Canadian polar bear populations. Are
you aware that such changes are submitted to the IUCN Polar
Bear Technical Committee for review and that the scientific
data must pass scrutiny of this international body, and do you
know that the last time they were changed was before 1996?
Dr. Rose. Yes, I am aware that----
Mr. Norwood. Are you familiar with all that?
Dr. Rose. I am aware of how the ICUN PBSG reviews those
things, yes, sir.
Mr. Norwood. You mentioned in your testimony that most of
the scientific studies have been done on female polar bears?
Dr. Rose. According to my review of all the research, yes,
sir.
Mr. Norwood. I wonder why that is?
Dr. Rose. My guess is because they are easier to approach,
handle, anesthetize. They are more easy to--they are easier to
find because of their ties to denning sights. I really----
Mr. Norwood. David, is that right? Are females easier to
find than males?
Mr. Akeeagok. No, sir. The females are harder to find than
the males.
Mr. Norwood. That is what I would think. Are they easier to
work with? I mean, are they nicer than the males?
Mr. Akeeagok. Pardon?
Mr. Norwood. Are the females nicer than the males?
Mrs. Cubin. Yes, they are.
Mr. Norwood. Polar bears, David. Well, let me just help
you, because the reason that we have our information on females
is because the neck of an adult male polar bear is larger than
the head and satellite tracking collars fall off the males
pretty easily. But males, just so you will know for the future,
are instead marked and recaptured by tattooing a mark on the
under side of the lips rather than placing the tag around their
neck. That will be of interest later on.
You say that there are relatively few polar bears tagged
each year for scientific purposes. Do you know how many are
tagged by the Northwest Territories each year?
Dr. Rose. About two or three hundred a year, to my
understanding.
Mr. Norwood. That, just so you will know for the future, is
436 bears, about 20 percent of the population.
Are you aware of a recently published article in
International Bear News, February 1997, Volume 6, Number 1,
page 12, in case you want to look it up, which suggests that
cannibalism is five to ten times higher in non-hunted bear
populations as opposed to hunted populations? Are you aware of
that?
Dr. Rose. I am not aware of that. I am aware that Dr. Ian
Stirling, who is a Canadian biologist, stated that he does not
believe cannibalism is a significant mortality factor in polar
bears.
Mr. Norwood. David, do you find that when there is an
abundance of bears, in particular polar bears, that there is
cannibalism that goes on? In other words, the male eat their
young, that kind of thing?
Mr. Akeeagok. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walter Jones. J.Y., tell me about that.
Dr. J.Y. Jones. I would be glad to comment on that. It is
true that cannibalism in the Canadian population is not a major
problem, but I would point out that it is eminently hunted. We
feel that it probably is a major problem in the Alaskan
population, which is very lightly hunted, and in other polar
bear populations around the world. But there is no question in
the hunted Canadian population that Dr. Stirling would be
addressing that it would be a minor problem. That is a hunted
population.
Mr. Norwood. But if it were not, because we can't import
bears, we would expect, perhaps, that the numbers of bears
might remain somewhere around the same because of cannibalism?
Dr. J.Y. Jones. Well, you might--I don't know that you
could infer that it would go up or down because of cannibalism,
but I think what you wind up with is a major population shift
toward older males and fewer cubs and females. This cannibalism
study that you refer to demonstrated very clearly that the
victims of cannibalism were not just cubs either. There were
female bears as well, and so what you wind up with is a shift
toward the very population that sport hunters are after or
would like to harvest, which is the adult male polar bear.
The--you require a certain number of adult male polar bears, of
course, to maintain the population just for purposes of
fertility and breeding, but when you have too many of them and
when these old adult males are not removed from the population,
you have a shift toward the older adult male and a shift away
from cubs and females. It is as simple as that.
The Chairman. How much time do you want?
Mr. Norwood. One last final question.
The Chairman. Before you do that, I heard the lady. She
said how disgusting those old males are.
Mrs. Cubin. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I said and we all know
how disgusting old males----
The Chairman. Old males are. May I suggest respectfully
some younger ones are also disgusting.
Mr. Norwood. Dr. Morrill, just a brief question, because I
wasn't sure I heard you right in your comments. We have heard
today that the Wildlife Service has approved five of the 12
management units in Canada. And I thought you said that perhaps
if we would listen to the Canadians just a little bit we would
find that they would in their management system have approved a
great deal more than five out of 12. Did I hear that right?
Dr. Morrill. At the Polar Bear Specialist Group in 19--
January of 1995--excuse me, 1996, the Canadians showed that all
except one population was at a sustainable level. So given what
Congress had said in the four conditions, then the Canadians--
11 out of the 12 at that--excuse me, 12 out of the 13 at that
time, because they divided one of the areas during that
particular meeting, 12 out of the 13 would have been approved.
Mr. Norwood. And that was some of the testimony in 1994
that we took justifying the law that was passed then.
Ms. Rose, my last question, just because I am real curious
about it. I understand that the Canadian Humane Society has
sued your Humane Society. What is that all about?
Dr. Rose. I couldn't tell you, sir. I am the Marine Mammal
Scientist. I am not in the executive level of the Humane
Society of the United States.
Mr. Norwood. Well, why--did the courts find you guilty--not
you personally, the Humane Society guilty in misappropriation
of funds?
Dr. Rose. I am sorry, I can't comment to that, sir.
Mr. Norwood. Why?
Dr. Rose. Because I am low on the totem pole. I am just in
the wildlife department. I don't----
Mr. Norwood. Do you not know the answer?
Dr. Rose. I do not know the answer, sir.
Mr. Norwood. Could you give us the name of somebody who
might know the answer?
Dr. Rose. You are free to contact Mr. Paul Irwin or Ms.
Patti Forkan at the Humane Society of the United States.
Mr. Norwood. Were you not aware of this suit?
Dr. Rose. Oh, I am certainly aware of it. It is mentioned
in the Safari Club's publications and in other publications.
Mr. Norwood. And so within inside the Humane Society you
all didn't talk about this we are being sued, for pity sakes,
by another Humane Society or talk about the fact the courts
have found us guilty for misappropriation of funds? You all
didn't talk about that?
Dr. Rose. Do you want me to testify to office gossip or
what I know for a fact?
Mr. Norwood. I am not really asking you did you read the
summary of the court records. I am asking you was that
generalized knowledge inside the Humane Society?
Dr. Rose. I was aware of it, but I just don't know the
details, sir.
Mr. Norwood. OK, well, I don't either. I am just curious
how in the world that could have happened. There must be a
difference in opinion in the Humane Society.
Dr. Rose. You do have to contact my bosses. I really don't
know.
Mr. Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady, do you have another question?
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chairman, yes, I didn't ask questions
before, and I just want to make a brief statement.
Philosophically Dr. Rose and I are very, very far apart, but,
you know, I think that the harm that has been done here has
been done by the bureaucracy and not by people interested in
this issue. I think it is perfectly acceptable that people
disagree on issues philosophically and respect one another for
that, and I just kind of want to go on the record that way. Any
wrongdoing that I see was not done on the part of the
interested public. It was done on the part of our own
government.
The Chairman. Only if they were involved with the
decisionmaking by the agency which had the responsibility to
implement the Congressional act and intent of the law. Then I
get very concerned.
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mrs. Cubin. I would even disagree with you on that. If I
had----
The Chairman. I wouldn't expect you not to do anything
else, but go ahead.
Mrs. Cubin. If I--you know, I think that as a citizen
concerned about an issue I have every right to deal at every
level to get my view represented. I think when I am an elected
official, when I am a bureaucrat it is a whole different deal,
but anyway.
The Chairman. I understand.
Mrs. Cubin. For the record----
The Chairman. I am just saying that my concern is for some
reason this July of 1995 complete flip flop. I mean this is the
most amazing thing I have ever seen. And the lawyer agree they
wrote it. And that didn't happen overnight. Somebody working--I
am going to restate it again. The lawyers in this room, the
agencies in this room supported this legislation. If there was
a problem when we wrote it, they should have let us know at
that time. And that is what I am after. This is, like Charlie
Norwood said, there is something very wrong here. And this is
why our government has lost its credibility big time.
The Chairman. And, David, again I want to thank you for
being here. That bell, don't jump, that bell is for a vote. And
I hope to get up to your area sometime. I had the privilege of
harvesting a polar bear in 1964 before all this nonsense took
place.
And we do have an abundance, Doctor, of polar bears in
Alaska to the point now we have lost three persons this last
year. They also like to chew on people. An abundance of them
and a terrible management system. If I can ever implement a
program such as David has, I am certainly going to try to
encourage it, because I think it is the right way to go. It
helps the local people, but more than that it manages species
that really now have some serious problems.
With that, we have a vote. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:38 p.m., the Committee was adjourned; and
the following was submitted for the record:]
Statement of the Honorable George Miller, a U.S. Representative from
California
Mr. Young has asked our speakers to comment on whether the
final rule reflects the legislative intent of the 1994
Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Before these
proceedings begin today, I would like to take a few moments to
comment on the issues of intent and purpose.
We should remember that the purpose of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act is to protect marine mammals and their habitat.
The 1994 Amendments did not change this purpose. Any rule
promulgated in accordance with the Amendments, must be
consistent with the overall Act and must allow only for
sustainable activities.
The Committee Report for the 1994 Amendments is quite clear
that it is our intent to insure that sport hunting of polar
bears does not adversely affect the sustainability of polar
bear populations throughout their range in Canada. It is not
sufficient that the overall numbers of polar bears grow, each
separate polar bear population must grow as well, ideally to
the MMPA goal of its optimum sustainable population.
I understand that there is some debate regarding whether
sport trophies taken prior to the enactment of the 1994
amendments should be subject to the same conservation
provisions as are applied to sport trophies taken after 1994.
Again, I want to reference the Committee Report--which I have
been told was agreed to by Mr. Young's staff at the time, and
we have no dissenting views to indicate otherwise. The Report
states: ``It is the Committee's intent that all conditions
outlined by this amendment concerning importation of polar bear
trophies taken prior to the adoption of this amendment have to
be met.''
I think we are all in agreement that agency decisions
should be based upon solid scientific data and in accordance
with sound, and effective, management principles. But what
action is to be taken when the data is incomplete or practices
are questionable? Was it the intent of Congress and the MMPA to
err on the side of conservation and protection, or to err on
the side of increased marine mammal takings?
Finally, I think we should remember that the MMPA
Amendments of 1994 require the Secretary to consider both the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
as well as the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar
Bears when analyzing Canada's polar bear management plans.
These international agreements embody sound hunting and
management practices. To take one example, the Polar Bear
Agreement requires that pregnant and nursing females, as well
as their cubs, be protected from hunting activities. Decisions
based on principles such as these are ones we all can support.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony and substantive
discussion of the issues.
----------
Statement of Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, a U.S. Representative from
California
Chairman Young, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of
this resolution, H.J.Res. 59, disapproving the Department of
Interior's Final Rule titled Importation of Polar Bear Trophies
from Canada Under the 1994 Amendments to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act.
Today is the third anniversary of the date that the
President signed the polar bear amendments to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA). Three full years have passed, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has yet to issue its first
permit.
As a fiscal conservative, I am very sensitive to wasted
time and dollars. In this case too many of both have been
thrown away by the agencies involved. Thousands of dollars have
been lost in conservation funds that could have been generated
by the issuance of permits. Thousands of dollars have been
denied the Inuit people who depend on this vital resource.
Thousands of sportsmen have stayed home or gone elsewhere,
because of the failure by the Fish and Wildlife Service to
carry out the intent of Congress.
This fiasco was a long time coming. To begin, Congress very
thoroughly considered the polar bear issue in 1994. We
collected information from both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Canadian government. When the amendments were
adopted in 1994, Congress concluded that the Canadian
government was efficiently managing its polar bear populations.
Congress provided the Secretary of the Interior tools to make
sure that the shift to sport hunting as a larger component of
polar bear management did not threaten the Canadian management
program. We then asked the Secretary to issue permits.
Congress certainly did not expect a three-year delay in the
process. I have tried to understand what went on to create the
mess by reviewing the process as it unfolded. However, that
does not answer why the Clinton Administration dragged its feet
despite clear motivation and direction by members of this
Committee. I would like to share with you the time line to make
clear that Congress did its utmost to get this new law
administered:
<bullet>April 30, 1994: President Clinton signed the
amendments to the MMPA.
<bullet>June 20, 1994: Congressmen Young and Fields wrote
to the Fish and Wildlife Service asking it to expedite the
process and that it should use interim regulations to issue
permits.
<bullet>August 24, 1994: The Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Marine Mammal Commission, and the State Department met to
design an approach for developing findings. The Fish and
Wildlife Service had a goal of publishing regulations by
January 1, 1995.
<bullet>August 29, 1994: The Fish and Wildlife Service
responded to Congressmen Young and Fields informing them that
rules need to be developed for the permits and that findings
have to be made.
<bullet>September 28, 1994: 25 members of Congress joined
me in a letter to the Secretary, noting that five months had
passed with no action and urging him to use his existing
authority to promptly issue permits.
<bullet>October 27, 1994: The Fish and Wildlife Service
published a notice in the Federal Register outlining the
process it would follow to make the required findings and
saying that it would issue regulations covering the permit
procedures.
<bullet>November 2, 1994: Congressman Jack Fields (R-TX),
the principal author of the polar bear amendments, wrote to
Assistant Secretary Frampton in response to the October 27
notice. He reminded the Assistant Secretary that in 1993, the
Fish and Wildlife Service had told Congress that sport hunting
was part of the Canadian management system and that it was not
harmful or in conflict with the Polar Bear Convention.
Congressman Fields also reminded the Fish and Wildlife Service
that it was not Congress' intent to impose management practices
on Canada and that Congress knew that Canada managed by
subpopulation. Congressman Fields also recommended to the Fish
and Wildlife Service that it should stop focusing on the past
management by Canadian authorities and instead focus on the
future impact that increased hunting by American hunters would
have on Canadian polar bear populations.
<bullet>January 3, 1995: The Fish and Wildlife Service
published a proposed rule on the permit procedures.
<bullet>January, 1995: The Fish and Wildlife Service sends
a draft proposed finding to the Marine Mammal Commission for
review.
<bullet>March and April, 1995: The Fish and Wildlife
Service held a series of internal meetings and prepared draft
findings.
<bullet>July 17, 1995: The Fish and Wildlife Service
published proposed findings. The public comment period was set
to end on August 31,1995, but was extended through November,
1995.
<bullet>September 7, 1995: The Fish and Wildlife Service
wrote to Congressman Young, saying that it will have a rule out
shortly (``this fall '') and then it will focus on the issue of
Parry Channel, where most of the hunting of polar bears occurs
in Canada, as a separate rulemaking.
<bullet>November 9, 1995: The Marine Mammal Commission
provided comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
<bullet>July, 1996: The Fish and Wildlife Service received
more data on Parry Channel populations but decided not to pull
back the final rule, which they were preparing, and not to
publish a new proposal since the research and data-gathering on
Parry Channel was still ongoing.
<bullet>August 15, 1996: Draft final rule goes out for
review and approval by various offices within the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
<bullet>October, 1996: The Fish and Wildlife Service
received more data on the Parry Channel issue. However, it
decided not to act on the new data at that time because the
final rule was near final publication.
<bullet>January, 1997: The Fish and Wildlife Service
obtained further information about the Parry Channel area from
the Polar Bear Technical Committee meeting.
<bullet>February 18, 1997: Final rule published, effective
March 20, 1997.
<bullet>March 5, 1997: The Fish and Wildlife Service wrote
to Canada asking for further information and saying it could
possibly have a proposed rule on the Parry Channel area out by
the end of April.
<bullet>April 22, 1997: The Marine Mammal Commission filed
a scientific evaluation with a positive finding on management
of two of the areas into which Parry Channel had been
restructured: Lancaster Sound and Norwegian Bay.
Following all of this effort, one would expect the Fish and
Wildlife Service to publish a comprehensive rule meeting the
criteria set forward by Congress. Unfortunately, the Fish and
Wildlife Service has put forward a rule that is incomplete. Its
final rule contains no provisions allowing for the import of
grandfathered polar-bear trophies from before 1994. In fact,
the Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that only five of
Canada's twelve polar bear populations are stable. In addition,
according to the Service's own data, there is little, if any,
hunting of these populations.
However, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that it
was unable to determine the sustainability of any the other
seven polar bear populations if hunting were allowed. When
Congress passed the polar bear amendments to the MMPA, we
considered this issue and instructed the Fish and Wildlife
Service to consider Canada capable of managing its own
populations. The Fish and Wildlife Service disregarded this
information and moved forward with a rule which is inconsistent
with the intent of Congress.
For this reason, I would encourage my colleagues to vote
for H.J.Res. 59, and direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to
return to Congress a rule which is comparable with the
amendments we passed in 1994. Mr. Chairman thank you for this
time.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.087
<all>