Bear Protection Act on the Move

Hearings were held in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, chaired by Senator John Chafee (R, RI), July 7, 1998, on eight bills which would be administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The bills, focused on endangerment of species used in Traditional Asian Medicine, included the Bear Protection Act and the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act. The Bear Protection Act would solve the differences in state legislation relating to bears. Some states, such as Idaho, permit sale of bear galls which bring fantastic prices on the traditional medicine market.

Senator Mitch McConnell (R, KY), the bill's chief sponsor, submitted testimony stating: "The poaching of bears is a national problem that is destined to become worse. Currently, there are enforcement and jurisdictional loopholes, which exist as a result of a patchwork of state laws, that allow this illegal trade to flourish. I believe we have a real opportunity, if we act now, to protect the bear populations in this country from individuals seeking to profit from the slaughter and sale of the organs of these magnificent animals.... The outright ban on the trade, sale, or barter of bear viscera, including items that claim to contain bear parts, will close the existing loopholes and will allow state and federal wildlife officials to focus their limited resources on much needed conservation efforts." Senator McConnell is joined in cosponsoring the Bear Protection Act with a bipartisan group of 54 members of the Senate, including over two thirds of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

A record number of groups, comprised of both animal protective and hunting organizations, joined together in support of the Bear Protection Act. Testimony submitted on behalf of these groups reported that the Earthcare Society and Association of Chinese Medicine and Philosophy, two prominent Hong Kong organizations, recognize 54 herbal substitutes for bear bile in traditional medicine remedies.

With such overwhelming support for enactment of the Bear Protection Act, opponents opted for the time-honored, low-profile method of bill-killing: delay by demanding further "study" and "funding." The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the American Zoological and Aquarium Association (AZA), and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) all called for more study and funding, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service supported them. This organized foot-dragging contradicts WWF's own previous messages to its members. In 1995 WWF stated: "American black bear populations are targets of illegal traders in bear parts. The booming medicinal market for these parts, where a single gall bladder can fetch up to $11,000 in some Far Eastern Markets, has already sent Asian bear populations into decline and is causing traders to turn increasingly to American black bears. A complex patchwork of state laws in the United States makes it almost impossible to regulate the trade." And "Information provided by federal, state, provincial and territorial wildlife agencies in the United States and Canada indicates that there also exists a well-developed market for parts from the American black bear."

Towards the end of the hearing, Senator Chafee, renowned for his mild manner in asking searching questions, inquired of Gary J. Taylor, legislative director of IAFWA who had strongly opposed passage of the Bear Protection Act, "What's the harm in doing it?" Mr. Taylor, caught off guard, was reduced to babbling about America's "unique relation of state and federal governments," which he characterized as "the envy of the rest of the world." He said that IAFWA would support the bill "if there was any substantiation at all" of need for it. The IAFWA (usually referred to as "the International" because wildlife managers in Canada and Mexico are also included in its powerful embrace) allegedly speaks for and represents the state wildlife agencies, but state agency directors and wildlife law enforcement personnel have made abundantly clear the great need for this valuable bill. A sampling of their statements follows.*

• Alaska: "Anything would help, any federal legislation in any form would help us ... If they could get this bill [BPA] through and actually make it a federal law, it would be great." — Sergeant Joe Campbell, former Commander, Statewide Investigations, now Post Supervisor, Department of Public Safety, Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection

• California: "We believe that California bear are taken to other states and sold....this is a loophole which endangers bear populations. California would be supportive of a uniform prohibition on the sale of gallbladders." — Boyd Gibbons, Director, California Department of Fish and Game

"Anytime you have any regulation that assists in the control of the illegal sale of bear parts, that's going to help. If all states were aligned, including Canada and their provinces, along with all of our states, in not allowing [trade in bear galls] it would be a tremendous benefit to enforcement. The problem comes where it is legal to [trade]." — Lieutenant Watkins, head of California's Department of Fish and Game Special Operations Unit

• Colorado: "The Division would be very supportive of any efforts at better protecting bears and dealing with the illegal trade, to include an interstate prohibition on the sale of bear galls." — Fran Marcoux, Chief of Wildlife Law Enforcement, Division of Wildlife

• Georgia: "I would love to see some kind of interstate prohibition on the sale of bear gall and bear parts." — Sergeant Jim Wallen, Georgia Wildlife Resources Division, Investigative Unit

• Idaho: "Bears are being poached just for their gallbladders.... We even have intelligence of people poaching bears in other states and laundering them in Idaho." — Paul Weyland, Special Agent, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise

• Louisiana: "Any extra legislation or laws put on the books gives us more teeth to do our job... [an interstate ban] would help us a lot." — Sergeant Mayne, Special Investigations Division, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

• North Carolina: "[An interstate ban] would be great because we constantly run into people that say that they got them (galls) in Michigan, Maine, everywhere in the world, and bring them here.. it would benefit enforcement. We work closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service but still, the Lacey Act is cumbersome at best.... I would like to see an interstate law." — Roger Lequire, Enforcement Division, Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

• Pennsylvania: "We do not subscribe to the commercialization of wildlife because it eventually leads to an unlawful activity. The drain on wildlife resources because of all the various markets and demands for either wildlife or parts is tremendous. We would support a law banning the commercialization of black bear parts and any other law that addresses unlawful traffic in wildlife." — J. R. Fagan, Director, Bureau of Law Enforcement (for the Director), Pennsylvania Game Commission

• Utah: "When you have got such disparity in laws in the states, it's so hard to enforce when you are working on trade in bear parts.... A federal prohibition on bear gall commerce is going to help us immensely." — William Woody, Enforcement Investigator, Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources.

• Washington: "It has been disturbing to note the increased efforts of those individuals who deal in bear and bear parts. I support the consistency of laws, both between states and nationally, to further the protection of all our fragile wildlife resources. Consistency between states and federal agencies, by the enactment of laws prohibiting the sale and export of bear and other wildlife parts, would help in closing the doors and loopholes that currently exist." — Dayna Matthews, Assistant Director, Enforcement Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

* Source of Statements: The American Bear Parts Trade: A State-by State Analysis, by Keith Highley for The Humane Society of the United States and Letters to Clifford J. Wood, Environmental Investigation Agency, 1995.

AWI Quarterly Spring 1998, Volume 47 Number 2, p. 10-11.