in Idaho or other States as noted. However, the sale of lawfully taken parts is not impacting the bear resource in this scenario. It is the unlawful taking that should be the focus, because unlawful taking most impacts bear populations. This type of poaching investigation would be pursued under existing law regardless of why the bear was killed and entered unlawfully into interstate commerce. Currently, all States where black bears occur in the United States prohibit unlawful take, regardless of motive. If bear parts dealers are motivated to kill more bears for the viscera market, they would be doing so in violation of existing State and Federal laws. If, however, a hunter is motivated to hunt bear to sell the bear's gall, and the bear is lawfully taken, the hunter's motive has no impact on the bear resource. In order to utilize the Division of Law Enforcement's resources as efficiently as possible, the Fish and Wildlife Service has established investigative priorities for Special Agents to use when making determinations of what cases to actively investigate. Service investigative priorities place commercialization of Federal trust species at the highest level of priority, above investigations involving species managed solely by the States. Investigations of a commercial nature are, in general, a higher priority than those of a noncommercial nature. Where there has been evidence of wildlife commercialization in violation of Federal law, Service Special Agents have investigated, and we will continue to create an effective deterrent to illegal commercialization of our nation's resources. Question 9. Please tell the Subcommittee your views on S. 968, the Bear Protection Act, and how this might help Federal and State wildlife officials crackdown on the illegal bear trade. Answer. Considering the best available information, existing law in the form of the Lacey Act, Endangered Species Act, CITES, Marine Mammal Protection Act, State law, and foreign (principally Canadian) law are adequate to address the illegal bear trade. An unlawfully taken bear cannot currently be imported to or exported from the United States or transported, sold, received, acquired, or purchased in interstate commerce. Fish and Wildlife Service investigations have not been hindered by the lack of adequate legislation. As currently written, the proposed Bear Protection Act will not assist wildlife officials in addressing the illegal bear trade, nor will it strengthen the level of protection currently afforded to bears in North America. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before your subcommittee on August 14. I greatly appreciated the opportunity to share with you and other committee members the findings of my colleagues and I concerning the difficult task of recovering threatened and endangered species to non-endangered status. At the conclusion of the hearings, you asked for suggestions on how incentives could be used to encourage protection of species and their habitats. The Defenders of Wildlife brought together individuals from very diverse backgrounds to address the incentives issue. Copies of their efforts are enclosed. While there were a variety of suggestions made, many found common ground in substantial incentives that would allow for action before issues become front page controversies. I participated in a dialogue on this same issue that involved the Environmental Defense Fund. Michael Bean of the organization may be contacted at (202) 387-3500 for details concerning that effort. In reviewing the various proposals in the collection of articles by Hank Fisher and Wendy Hudson, I found the suggestion for the enclosed economic incentives presented by Jim McKinney, Mark Shaffer, and Jeff Olson of the Wilderness Society quite defensible. They identified a series of tax incentives and disincentives that included: properly taxed credits for habitat maintenance, tax credits for habitat improvement, partial tax credit for ESA compliance expenditure by small land owners, income tax deductions for revenue from land managed to support endangered species, tax penalties for habitat conversion, prohibition of the use of federal subsidies and tax benefits for activities causing the loss or degradation of endangered species habitat, and creation of a market for development of important biological habitat. This last one, I believe, offers tremendous potential. It has been successfully used to avoid conflicts in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey. If you wish additional details on this issue, I suggest you contact Mark Shaffer of the Nature Conservancy at (703-841-4589). In seeking incentives to gain greater participation by the private sector in protecting endangered species and more importantly, preventing species from becoming endangered, we must ensure a great deal of flexibility in our actions before a crisis develops. Additionally, the program must be voluntary. I hope that the enclosed material is useful to you. Again, thanks for allowing me to testify before your subcommittee on. If I can answer any questions, please contact me at 208-885-6336 or fax 208-8859080, or e-mail at mscott@uidaho.edu. Sincerely, j Michael Scott J. Michael Scott enclosures Note: The full report is held in Committee files. The following is a draft of the Executive Summary from Defenders of EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During 1994 and 1995 Defenders of Wildlife brought together groups of industrial and non-industrial private landowners, members of the environmental community, and government representatives to discuss the Endangered Species Act and how it effects private lands and private landowners. The seven regional roundtables held across the nation were designed to: identify problems and successes associated with the Act and private landowners, familiarize participants with the existing range of economic incentives and administrative options, and cooperatively develop proposals to change the Act to make it work better for private landowners, resource agencies, the public and the species and ecosystems the Act was designed to protect and recover. Although the We Roundtable Meeting Sites: San Ramon, CA Shreveport, LA Orlando, FL divorce themselves from their agency's, community's or industry's public position on the Act. Participants in the roundtable represented the full spectrum of their respective communities. Ranchers, developers, utility operators, and the timber industry sat down with grassroots environmentalists and local government officials. Farmers, manufacturers, waste managers, and hard rock miners met with federal officials and conservationists. All interests were welcome. The only requirements for participation were being a regional stakeholder and a willingness to talk and work cooperatively with others. Several central findings emerged early in the process. Whereas some parties have . portrayed a national climate of almost universal disdain for the Act, we found that among our participants: all felt we should have a vibrant Endangered Species Act, most felt the Act could be easily fixed, some had been blaming the Act for restrictions that were actually the result of local planning ordinances, and many who deal regularly with the Act were unfamiliar with its inherent flexibility. Main ESA Concerns All participants were supportive of the intent of the Act. However, there was tremendous frustration expressed about the administration, implementation, and enforcement of the Act. In general, the comments fell within the following broad categories of criticism: administration: generally lacks flexibility, focuses too much on procedures rather than results, disproportionately affects small, private landowners, and implementation: lacks certainty, focuses too much on single species and not enough on multi-species plans, inadequately provides for preventative measures, and needs to create more opportunities for local action and control. enforcement: needs to move away from enforcement model that relies on criminal penalties towards contractual enforcement model relying on civil penalties. funding: not adequately funded in general and |