Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2013

Floor Speech

Mr. PETERS of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3590, the SHARE Act of 2013. This bill contains a harmful provision that chips away at the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) by retroactively allowing the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies as Title IV of the bill. I submitted an amendment to the bill which would have struck Title IV, however the Rules Committee denied the members of this body an opportunity to vote on this issue. I am disappointed this legislation was not brought to the floor under an open rule which would have allowed consideration of my amendment so members could debate this precedent-setting provision.

Polar bears are protected from sport hunting in the United States, including the polar bear population in Alaska. In 2008 the Bush Administration listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act and the 1972 MMPA protects polar bears and other marine mammals. To allow American hunters to kill them for trophies in other countries is irresponsible and inconsistent with the bipartisan commitment to conserving the polar bear population.

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the polar bear is a ``vulnerable'' species based on a projected population reduction of more than 30 percent within three generations (45 years) due to a decrease in distribution and habitat quality. It is estimated there are fewer than 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears remaining in the wild.

Title IV of this bill exempts 41 trophy hunters who had proper notice of the impending prohibition on import of polar bear trophies. These 41 individuals hunted these bears after the Bush Administration proposed the species for listing as threatened under ESA, and all but one continued to hunt polar bears more than a year after the listing was proposed. Despite repeated warnings from hunting organizations and government agencies that they were hunting at their own risk because trophy imports were unlikely to be allowed as of the listing date, these individuals sport hunted polar bears anyway.

An example of warnings regarding the prospects of importing polar bear trophies comes from hunting rights organization Conservation Force. The group wrote to hunters in December 2007: ``American hunters are asking us whether they should even look at polar bear hunts in light of the current effort by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list this species as threatened ..... The bottom line is, no American hunter should be putting hard, non-returnable money down on a polar bear hunt at this point.'' The group also noted in January 2008: ``We feel compelled to tell you that American trophy hunters are likely to be barred from importing bears they take this season. Moreover, there is a chance that bears taken previous to this season may be barred as well. American clients with polar bear trophies still in Canada or Nunavut need to get those bears home.''

Conservation Force again reminded hunters that the ESA listing ``will stop all imports ..... immediately'' in April 2008. Later that same month, Safari Club International informed hunters: ``If some or all of the polar bear populations are listed, the FWS has indicated that imports of trophies from any listed populations would be barred as of that date, regardless of where in the process the application is.''

Congress should not change a law just because a few people did not heed clear and ample warnings. It is an affront to the millions of hunters and sportsmen who followed the law and observed the warning of government agencies and hunting organizations.

The hunters that chose to travel to the Arctic to sport hunt polar bears should not receive special treatment. Doing so creates a moral hazard and establishes a dangerous precedent that could encourage rushes to sport hunt imperiled species prior to their formal listing as an endangered species. Those who wish to sport hunt imperiled species should understand they do so at their own risk and cannot rely on allies in Congress to bail them out with a retroactive waiver of critical conservation law.

Congress first carved out a loophole in the MMPA and allowed for more than 900 sport-hunted polar bear trophies to be imported into the United States from Canada in 1994. In 1997, Congress amended the MMPA to allow imports of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada before April 1994, regardless of what population the bear was taken from, and despite the strict prohibition on trophy imports in place prior to 1994. In 2003, Congress amended the MMPA to allow imports of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada before February 1997. This allowed imports regardless of what population the bear is taken from, and as long as the hunter proves that the bear is ``legally harvested in Canada.''

Today with H.R. 3590, we have yet another effort to allow polar bear imports. This time we are asked to approve an additional 41 trophies on top of the more than 1,000 already Congress previously sanctioned for import. How many times are we going to provide these ``one-time'' import allowances? Doing this repeatedly undermines the restrictions on killing rare species.

At a time when Congress should be working in a bipartisan basis to address many of the critical issues facing American families, more special treatment for wealthy sport hunters should not be a priority. I am disappointed that my amendment to strike Title IV was not made in order and that the House did not have an opportunity to further debate this matter.

Source