[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12054-12061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6486]
[[Page 12053]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VIII
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 20
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 1997-1998 Migratory Game Bird Hunting
Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 12054]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AE14
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 1997-1998 Migratory Game Bird
Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) with Requests for Indian Tribal
Proposals
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter the Service)
proposes to establish annual hunting regulations for certain migratory
game birds. The Service also requests proposals from Indian tribes that
wish to establish special migratory bird hunting regulations. The
establishment of these regulations will permit the taking of the
designated species during the 1997-98 hunting season. The Service
annually prescribes outside limits (frameworks) within which States may
select hunting seasons. The Service has also employed guidelines to
establish special migratory bird hunting regulations on Federal Indian
reservations and ceded lands. These seasons provide hunting
opportunities for recreation and sustenance; aid Federal, State, and
tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds; and are
designed to permit harvests at levels compatible with migratory bird
population status and habitat conditions.
DATES: Tribes should submit proposals and related comments by June 2,
1997. The comment period for proposed early-season frameworks will end
on July 25, 1997; and for proposed late-season frameworks on September
4, 1997. The Service will hold a public hearing for early-season
frameworks on June 26, 1997, at 9 a.m. and late-season frameworks on
August 7, 1997, at 9 a.m.
ADDRESSES: The Service will hold both public hearings in the
Auditorium, Department of the Interior Building, 1849 C Street NW.,
Washington, DC. The public may submit written comments on the proposals
and notice of intention to testify at either hearing to the Chief,
Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, ms 634--ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20240. All comments received, including names and
addresses, will become part of the public record. The public may
inspect comments received during normal business hours in room 634,
Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel at: Office of Migratory
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, ms 634--ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240 (703)
358-1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For administrative purposes, this document
consolidates the notice of intent and request for tribal proposals with
the preliminary proposals for the annual regulations-development
process. The Service will publish the remaining proposed and final
rulemaking documents separately. For inquiries on tribal guidelines and
proposals, please contact the following personnel.
--Region 1--Brad Bortner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 N.E. 11th
Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; (503) 231-6164.
--Region 2--Jeff Haskins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box
1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103; (505) 248-7885.
--Region 3--Steve Wilds, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal
Building, One Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056; (612)
725-3313.
--Region 4--Frank Bowers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century
Boulevard, Room 324, Atlanta, Georgia 30345; (404) 679-4000.
--Region 5--George Haas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate
Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589; (413) 253-8576.
--Region 6--John Cornely, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box
25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225; (303) 236-8145.
--Region 7--Robert Leedy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East
Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; (907) 786-3423.
Notice of Intent to Establish Open Seasons
This notice announces the intention of the Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, to establish open hunting seasons and daily bag and
possession limits for certain designated groups or species of migratory
game birds for 1997-1998 in the contiguous United States, Alaska,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, under Secs. 20.101 through
20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K of 50 CFR part 20.
``Migratory game birds'' are those bird species so designated in
conventions between the United States and several foreign nations for
the protection and management of these birds. All other birds
designated as migratory (under 10.13 of Subpart B of 50 CFR Part 10) in
the aforementioned conventions may not be hunted. For the 1997-98
hunting season, the Service will propose regulations for certain
designated members of the avian families Anatidae (ducks, geese, and
swans); Columbidae (doves and pigeons); Gruidae (cranes); Rallidae
(rails, coots, moorhens, and gallinules); and Scolopacidae (woodcock
and snipe). These proposals are described under Proposed 1997-98
Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) in this document.
Definitions of waterfowl flyways and mourning dove management units, as
well as a description of the data used in and the factors affecting the
regulatory process, were published in the March 14, 1990, Federal
Register (55 FR 9618).
Regulatory Schedule for 1997-1998
This is the first in a series of proposed and final rulemaking
documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations. The Service will
make proposals relating to the harvest of migratory game birds
initiated after publication of this proposed rulemaking available for
public review in supplemental proposed rulemakings published in the
Federal Register. Also, the Service will publish additional
supplemental proposals for public comment in the Federal Register as
population, habitat, harvest, and other information become available.
Because of the late dates when certain portions of these data
become available, the Service anticipates that comment periods on some
proposals will be necessarily abbreviated. Special circumstances limit
the amount of time which the Service can allow for public comment on
these regulations. Specifically, two considerations compress the time
for the rulemaking process: the need, on one hand, to establish final
rules at a time early enough in the summer to allow resource agencies
to select and publish season dates and bag limits prior to the hunting
seasons and, on the other hand, the lack of current data on the status
of most migratory game birds until later in the summer.
Because the process is strongly influenced by the times when
information is available for consideration, the overall regulations
process is divided into two segments. Early seasons are those seasons
that generally open prior to October 1, and include seasons in Alaska,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Late seasons are those
seasons opening in the remainder of the United States about
[[Page 12055]]
October 1 and later, and include most of the waterfowl seasons.
Major steps in the 1997-1998 regulatory cycle relating to public
hearings and Federal Register notifications are illustrated in the
accompanying diagram. Dates shown relative to publication of Federal
Register documents are target dates.
Sections of this and subsequent documents which outline hunting
frameworks and guidelines are organized under numbered headings. These
headings are:
1. Ducks
2. Sea Ducks
3. Mergansers
4. Canada Geese
5. White-fronted Geese
6. Brant
7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese
8. Swans
9. Sandhill Cranes
10. Coots
11. Moorhens and Gallinules
12. Rails
13. Snipe
14. Woodcock
15. Band-tailed Pigeons
16. Mourning Doves
17. White-winged and White-tipped Doves
18. Alaska
19. Hawaii
20. Puerto Rico
21. Virgin Islands
22. Falconry
23. Other
Later sections of this and subsequent documents will refer only to
numbered items requiring attention. Therefore, we will omit those items
requiring no attention and remaining numbered items will be
discontinuous and appear incomplete.
Public Hearings
Two public hearings pertaining to 1997-1998 migratory game bird
hunting regulations are scheduled. The Service will conduct both
hearings in accordance with 455 DM 1 of the Departmental Manual. On
June 26, the Service will hold a public hearing at 9 a.m. in the
Auditorium of the Department of the Interior Building, 1849 C Street
NW., Washington, DC. This hearing will review the status of migratory
shore and upland game birds and discuss proposed hunting regulations
for these species plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; special September
waterfowl seasons in designated States; special sea duck seasons in the
Atlantic Flyway; extended falconry seasons; and proposed regulatory
alternatives for the 1997-98 duck hunting season. On August 7, the
Service will hold a public hearing at 9 a.m. in the Auditorium of the
Department of the Interior Building, address above. This hearing will
review the status and proposed regulations for waterfowl not previously
discussed at the June 26 public hearing. The public is invited to
participate in both hearings. Persons wishing to make a statement at
these hearings should write to the address indicated under the caption
ADDRESSES.
Requests for Tribal Proposals
Background
Beginning with the 1985-86 hunting season, the Service has employed
guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR
23467) to establish special migratory bird hunting regulations on
Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and
ceded lands. The Service developed these guidelines in response to
tribal requests for Service recognition of their reserved hunting
rights, and for some tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate
hunting by both tribal and nontribal members throughout their
reservations. The guidelines include possibilities for:
(1) on-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal members,
with hunting by nontribal members on some reservations to take place
within Federal frameworks, but on dates different from those selected
by the surrounding State(s);
(2) on-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of usual
Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily bag and
possession limits; and
(3) off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands,
outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added
flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.
In all cases, the regulations established under the guidelines
would have to be consistent with the annual March 10 to September 1
closed season mandated by the 1916 Convention Between the United States
and Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds
(Convention). The guidelines are capable of application to those tribes
that have reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations
(including off-reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. They also
apply to the establishment of migratory bird hunting regulations for
nontribal members on all lands within the exterior boundaries of
reservations where tribes have full wildlife management authority over
such hunting, or where the tribes and affected States otherwise have
reached agreement over hunting by nontribal members on non-Indian
lands.
Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory bird
hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to
Service approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on
reservations that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when
the surrounding States have established or intend to establish
regulations governing hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such
cases, the Service encourages the tribes and States to reach agreement
on regulations that would apply throughout the reservations. When
appropriate, the Service will consult with a tribe and State with the
aim of facilitating an accord. The Service also will consult jointly
with tribal and State officials in the affected States where tribes may
wish to establish special hunting regulations for tribal members on
ceded lands. As explained in previous rulemaking documents, it is
incumbent upon the tribe and/or the State to put forward a request for
consultation as a result of the proposal being published in the Federal
Register. The Service will not presume to make a determination, without
being advised by a tribe or a State, that any issue is/is not worthy of
formal consultation.
One of the guidelines provides for the continuation of harvest of
migratory game birds by tribal members on reservations where it is a
customary practice. The Service does not oppose this harvest, provided
it does not take place during the closed season required by the
Convention, and it is not so large as to adversely affect the status of
the migratory bird resource. For several years, the Service has reached
annual agreement with tribes for hunting by tribal members on their
lands or on lands where they have reserved hunting rights. The Service
will continue to consult with tribes that wish to reach a mutual
agreement on hunting regulations for on-reservation hunting by tribal
members.
The guidelines should not be viewed as inflexible. Nevertheless,
the Service believes that they provide appropriate opportunity to
accommodate the reserved hunting rights and management authority of
Indian tribes while ensuring that the migratory bird resource receives
necessary protection. The conservation of this important international
resource is paramount. Use of the guidelines is not required if a tribe
wishes to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s)
in which the reservation is located.
[[Page 12056]]
Details Needed in Tribal Proposals
Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting
regulations for the 1997-98 hunting season must submit a proposal that
includes:
(1) the requested hunting season dates and other details regarding
regulations to be observed;
(2) harvest anticipated under the requested regulations;
(3) methods that will be employed to measure or monitor harvest
(mail-questionnaire survey, bag checks, etc.);
(4) steps that will be taken to limit level of harvest, where it
could be shown that failure to limit such harvest would seriously
impact the migratory bird resource; and
(5) tribal capabilities to establish and enforce migratory bird
hunting regulations.
A tribe that desires the earliest possible opening of the waterfowl
season should specify this in the proposal, rather than request a date
that might not be within the final Federal frameworks. Similarly,
unless a tribe wishes to set more restrictive regulations than Federal
regulations will permit, the proposal should request the same daily bag
and possession limits and season length for ducks and geese that
Federal regulations are likely to permit the States in the Flyway in
which the reservation is located.
Tribal Proposal Procedures
The Service will publish pertinent details in tribal proposals for
public review in later Federal Register documents. Because of the time
required for Service and public review, Indian tribes that desire
special migratory bird hunting regulations for the 1997-98 hunting
season should submit their proposals as soon as possible, but no later
than June 2, 1997. Tribes should direct inquiries regarding the
guidelines and proposals to the appropriate Service Regional Office
listed under the caption Supplementary Information. Tribes that request
special hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded lands should
send a courtesy copy of the proposal to officials in the affected
State(s).
Public Comments Solicited
The policy of the Department of the Interior is, whenever
practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons are invited to
submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the
proposed regulations. Promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting
regulations will take into consideration all comments received by the
Service. Such comments, and any additional information received, may
lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals. Interested
persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments to the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
The public may inspect comments received on the proposed annual
regulations during normal business hours at the Service's office in
room 634, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. For each
series of proposed rulemakings, the Service will establish specific
comment periods. The Service will consider, but possibly may not
respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, the Service will
summarize all comments received during the comment period and respond
to them after the closing date.
Flyway Council Meetings
Departmental representatives will be present at the following
winter meetings of the various Flyway Councils:
DATE: March 14, 1997
--Central Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.
DATE: March 15, 1997
--National Waterfowl Council, 3:30 p.m.
DATE: March 16, 1997
--Atlantic Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.
--Mississippi Flyway Council, 8:30 a.m.
--Pacific Flyway Council, 1:00 p.m.
The Council meetings will be held at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500
Calvert Street, NW., Washington, DC.
NEPA Consideration
NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document,
``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual
Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-
14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988.
Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on June
16, 1988 (53 FR 22582). The Service's Record of Decision was published
on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). In addition, an August 1985
environmental assessment entitled ``Guidelines for Migratory Bird
Hunting Regulations on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands'' is
available from the Service at the address indicated under the caption
ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
Prior to issuance of the 1997-98 migratory game bird hunting
regulations, the Service will consider provisions of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter the
Act) to ensure that hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any species designated as endangered or threatened or
modify or destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with
conservation programs for those species. Consultations under Section 7
of this Act may cause the Service to change proposals in this and
future supplemental proposed rulemaking documents.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
This rule is economically significant and was reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
These regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial
numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The economic impacts of the annual hunting
regulations on small business entities were analyzed in detail and a
Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) was issued by the Service
in 1996. The Analysis documented the significant beneficial economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities. The primary source of
information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting
is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-
year intervals. The Analysis utilized the 1991 National Hunting and
Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business
Patterns from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would
spend between $254 and $592 million at small businesses in 1996.
Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the Office
of Migratory Bird Management. The address is indicated under the
caption ADDRESSES.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Department examined these regulations under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and found no information collection requirements.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 1997-98
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712,
and 16 U.S.C. 742 a--j.
[[Page 12057]]
Dated: March 5, 1997.
Don Barry,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
Proposed 1997-1998 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations
(Preliminary)
Pending current information on populations, harvest, and habitat
conditions, and receipt of recommendations from the four Flyway
Councils, specific framework proposals (including opening and closing
dates, seasons lengths, and bag limits) may be deferred. Unless
otherwise specified, no change from the final 1996-97 frameworks of
August 29 and September 26, 1996, (61 FR 45836 and 50662) is proposed.
Specific preliminary proposals that vary from the 1996-97 frameworks
and issues requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the
States or tribes are contained below:
1. Ducks
A. Harvest Strategy Considerations
The annual process of setting duck-hunting regulations in the
United States is based on a system of resource monitoring, data
analyses, and rulemaking. Each year, monitoring activities such as
aerial surveys and hunter questionnaires provide information on harvest
levels, population size, and habitat conditions on the breeding
grounds. Data collected from these monitoring programs are analyzed
each year, and proposals for duck-hunting regulations are developed by
the Flyway Councils, States, and the Service. After extensive public
review, the Service announces a regulatory framework within which
States can set their hunting seasons.
By and large, this process has generally worked well. For most duck
species, population levels and associated hunting opportunities have
been maintained in the face of variable environmental conditions and
permanent landscape changes. Despite this success, however, the annual
process of setting regulations often has been controversial. Debates
over appropriate regulations are frequent among hunters, managers, and
the public-at-large. The controversy typically stems from disagreements
about the role of harvest in population dynamics. As a consequence,
managers are unsure about how much regulations should be restricted
when populations are declining, how much they can be liberalized when
populations are increasing, and when those regulatory changes should
occur.
To help answer these questions, the Service, in cooperation with
the Flyway Councils, introduced the concept of Adaptive Harvest
Management (AHM) in 1995. AHM should help managers better understand
the impacts of regulations on harvest and population levels, thereby
improving the ability to provide maximum hunting opportunities
consistent with long-term resource maintenance. AHM also is intended to
provide a more objective, better informed, and less contentious
decision-making process, as well as a formal and coherent framework for
addressing controversial harvest-management issues.
Key components of AHM are agreement on the goals of harvest
management, a limited number of regulatory alternatives or options, and
alternative models of population dynamics. The alternative models
reflect disagreement among managers regarding the effects of hunting
regulations on harvest and population size. With AHM, the setting of
hunting regulations involves a repetitive process:
(1) each year, an optimal regulation is identified based on
population and habitat status, and on the relative ability of
alternative models to mimic population dynamics;
(2) after the regulatory decision is made, each population model is
used to predict breeding population size the following year;
(3) when monitoring data become available, models that more
accurately predict observed population size gain credibility, while
those models that are poor predictors lose credibility; and
(4) the new assessments of model credibility are used to start
another iteration of the process.
A technical working group representing the Service, the four Flyway
Councils, and the Canadian Wildlife Service was established in 1992 to
assist with implementation of AHM. The working group continues to meet
at least once a year to pursue AHM conceptual development and to
consider technical and communication issues for the current regulatory
cycle. The working group met in December 1996 to address issues and
concerns raised during the 1996 regulatory process. The working group's
role continues to be strictly advisory and should not be misconstrued
as a substitute for any existing technical or decision-making body.
The working group continues to express concern about what may be
unrealistic expectations among managers and the public regarding the
scope and speed of AHM implementation. The working group emphasizes
that AHM has highlighted many unresolved issues in waterfowl harvest
management, and that adequate time is needed to address these issues in
a comprehensive and coherent manner. In the interim, the Service is
interested in working with its partners to foster agreement on
technical issues of highest priority and realistic timetables for
action. The Service believes strongly that the success of AHM will
depend on a commitment to careful and methodical implementation.
Implementation of AHM began in 1995 with a focus on midcontinent
mallards. The Service believes this focus is appropriate because
mallards are the most abundant and heavily harvested duck species, and
because the status of mallards is closely related to the status of many
other duck stocks. Nonetheless, the Service continues to work toward a
more formal AHM framework for other ducks, including mallards in
eastern breeding areas, northern pintails, canvasbacks, and black
ducks. Ultimately, however, managers face a number of practical
constraints (e.g., available data, quality of monitoring programs,
complexity of assessment procedures) and development of a general AHM
framework for all duck stocks likely is not feasible. The Service
believes that the following questions should be addressed when
considering whether a regulatory approach different than that for
mallards is warranted:
(1) How much does the duck stock differ from mallards in terms of
population dynamics (i.e., responses to environmental conditions and
harvest) and vulnerability to harvest?
(2) What are the relative costs (i.e., monitoring and assessment)
and benefits (i.e., increased hunting opportunity and improved ability
to attain population goals) of managing the duck stock independently
from mallards?
(3) What is the ability of hunters to harvest selectively?
(4) Do hunters prefer the maximum hunting opportunity afforded by
complex regulations, or simpler hunting regulations that offer less
hunting opportunity?
Although these issues always have been considered before
implementing stock-specific harvest strategies, the Service is
interested in developing formal assessments before considering
significant changes to existing harvest strategies for duck species
other than mallards.
In July 1996, the four Flyway Councils passed a joint
recommendation regarding development of regulatory alternatives for
AHM. This recommendation stressed the importance of refining the
current
[[Page 12058]]
alternatives and provided guidelines for considering modifications.
Following the July Council meetings, the AHM working group prepared a
mail survey requesting further clarification from Council members
regarding their concerns about the current alternatives. Copies of the
joint recommendation and of the survey results are available upon
request from the Office of Migratory Bird Management at the address
indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
Based on input from the Flyway Councils, the working group
developed a recommended set of regulatory alternatives for the 1997-98
hunting season. Significant changes from last year's alternatives would
include: (1) the addition of a very restrictive alternative; (2)
additional days and a higher total-duck daily bag limit in the moderate
and liberal alternatives; and (3) an increase in the bag limit of hen
mallards in the moderate and liberal alternatives. See the attached
table for a complete description of the recommended alternatives. The
working group provided the following explanations and rationale for
these alternatives:
(1) the range and number of regulatory alternatives was expanded to
decrease the probability of closed seasons and to take greater
advantage of available hunting opportunity at high population levels;
however, even the very restrictive option would be too liberal for some
combinations of population size and pond numbers due to the emphasis
placed on reaching the goal of the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan at very low population sizes; in addition, more days and a higher
daily bag limit in the liberal option tends to produce more
conservative regulatory choices at low population sizes;
(2) recommended maximum and minimum season lengths and bag limits
largely reflect the reported desires of most Flyway Council members;
differences in season length and bag limits among Flyways generally
maintain proportional differences during the last two decades;
(3) total bag limits under the moderate and liberal alternatives
would be increased to provide additional hunting opportunity for
species not restricted within the overall bag; this change would allow
additional harvest of abundant species like gadwall, teal, and shoveler
above and beyond that realized from additional days in the season;
(4) the increase in bag limits of hen mallards is recommended to
address States' concern about overly-restrictive regulations, while
recognizing there are biological and sociological arguments for
maintaining sex-specific bag limits; the working group also recognized,
however, that hen harvest rates are lower than those for males and that
many hunters are adverse to shooting hens, irrespective of what
regulations allow; and
(5) some simplification in regulations would be achieved by
assigning the same basic bag limits to the very restrictive and
restrictive alternatives, and to the moderate and liberal alternatives;
this also would provide a better basis to investigate the independent
effects of season length and bag limit.
Final estimates of harvest rates (i.e., the proportion of the fall
flight harvested) expected from the recommended regulatory alternatives
will be available in the near future. Predictions will be based on
estimates of harvest rates realized in the recent past, Flyway-specific
analyses that predict the effect of changing days and bag limits, and
the long-term declines in hunter numbers. Preliminary estimates of mean
harvest rates for adult male mallards are provided in the following
table. Harvest rates of females would be about 30% lower than those for
males. The selection of the appropriate alternative for the 1997-98
hunting season would depend on breeding population and production
estimates, which will be available in late July.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest
Alternative rates
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very restrictive........................................... 4.5
Restrictive................................................ 7.1
Moderate................................................... 9.2
Liberal.................................................... 12.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Service will offer its proposal for regulatory alternatives for
ducks in the Federal Register in late May, with a public comment period
to end on or about June 27, 1997. Final regulatory alternatives will be
published in the Federal Register on or about July 15, 1997.
G. Special Seasons/Species Management
i. Canvasback
Since 1994, the Service has followed a harvest-management strategy
for canvasbacks which considers population levels, potential for
recruitment, and expected harvest by hunters. The plan permits an open
season on canvasbacks with a 1-bird daily bag limit nationwide when the
above factors are sufficient to maintain a spring population size of
500,000 birds. Each year, the Service reviews harvest and population-
status information to evaluate the effectiveness of the harvest
strategy. This information is not yet available for 1997. The Service
proposes no change in the strategy employed for deciding on regulations
governing the harvest of canvasbacks.
ii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
The Service continues to stress the importance of improving wood
duck population monitoring programs. Such programs are necessary to
ensure maintenance of our regular season approach to managing this
species. The Wood Duck Population Monitoring Initiative (Initiative),
completed in 1996, will provide managers with an assessment of the
geographic scale at which we can adequately monitor population levels
or trends, productivity, and survival and recovery rates. The draft
final report for the Initiative is currently being reviewed by Flyway
Council Technical Sections and Service cooperators. Publication of the
final report is scheduled for July 1997.
Decisions regarding the appropriateness of September teal/wood duck
seasons will be made in cooperation with the Flyway Councils after the
assessment of wood duck monitoring programs is completed. Until such
time, the Service does not propose changes to these seasons in
Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida or to expand such seasons elsewhere.
iii. High Plains Mallard Management Unit
The Service is expecting the report on the High Plains Mallard
Management Unit from the Central Flyway Council. Prompt completion of
the report is encouraged prior to this summer's regulatory decisions.
iv. Black Ducks
The wintering population of black ducks appears to have stabilized
over the last decade during which restrictive regulations have been in
effect. Recent Midwinter Waterfowl Survey estimates have been slightly
more than 300,000 for the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways combined.
Black duck populations remain below the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan goal of 385,000.
Current black duck harvest restrictions are based on guidelines
outlined in the 1983 Environmental Assessment, which requested that
States voluntarily reduce their harvest by 25% from 1977-81 levels. To
date, both Flyways and individual States have met or exceeded this
goal. Beginning in 1994, with the return of more liberal duck seasons,
black duck harvests have
[[Page 12059]]
increased. The Service is concerned that these longer seasons may
result in higher harvests and may have a negative impact upon black
duck recovery.
Recent survival analyses from banding programs have not
definitively answered questions regarding the impacts of harvest, but
do not rule out the possibility of additive effects on the dynamics of
black duck populations. To help clarify the role of harvest, the Black
Duck Joint Venture Committee indicated that a higher priority should be
placed on achieving preseason banding goals. The Service requests input
from the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils.
v. Youth Hunt
This past year, the Service offered States the opportunity to
establish a special ``Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day.'' The one-day season
was intended to introduce youth to the concepts of ethical utilization
and stewardship of waterfowl and other natural resources, encourage
youngsters and adults to experience the outdoors together, and
contribute to our Nation's migratory bird conservation efforts. The
Service is currently evaluating this opportunity and is committed to
working with the States and the Flyway Councils prior to any similar
proposal for a youth hunt this year.
4. Canada Geese
In 1995, the regular season on Atlantic Population (AP) Canada
geese was closed due to dramatic declines in the breeding population
from 118,000 pairs in 1988 to 29,000 pairs in 1995. In 1996, the spring
breeding survey in northern Quebec recorded an increase to 46,000
pairs. However, habitat conditions at the time of the survey last
spring were not favorable for nesting and productivity of AP Canada
geese was believed to have been below average. While the impact of last
year's poor production may not affect this year's spring survey, this
``missing'' year class will impact production in future years.
An Action Plan approved by the Atlantic Flyway Council last year
calls for a return to 60,000 breeding pairs and evidence of a sustained
population recovery before hunting seasons are resumed. The overall
population objective for the AP is 150,000 pairs in the Ungava Region.
Further, the Action Plan for the next five years (1997-2001) calls for
an ambitious commitment to fund monitoring programs, measure
productivity, initiate breeding ground banding, and implement surveys
to measure subsistence harvest. The Service, the Canadian Wildlife
Service, States and Provinces have been asked to participate in this
effort to improve our management database on AP Canada Geese. Copies of
the Action Plan are available upon request from the Office of Migratory
Bird Management at the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
Last year, several questions arose regarding the population status
and harvest of a ``Maritime'' or ``North Atlantic'' Population of
Canada geese. This stock of birds was not identified separately from
the AP in previous Flyway management plans primarily because little
survey information exists to monitor the status or differentiate the
harvest of this stock from AP birds. Currently, the Atlantic Flyway has
agreed to begin the task of setting up the appropriate surveys
necessary to delineate this stock of birds and determine whether it
should be managed separately from the AP in the future.
14. Woodcock
The Service is increasingly concerned about the gradual long-term
declines in woodcock populations in the Eastern and Central Management
Regions. Although habitat change appears to be the primary cause of the
declines, the Service believes that hunting regulations should be
commensurate with the status of woodcock populations and rates of
decline. The Service seeks active participation by the Atlantic,
Mississippi, and Central Flyway Councils in the development of short-
and long-term harvest management strategies for woodcock, which
identify the circumstances under which changes in harvest opportunity
should be implemented and what those changes should be. Should the 1997
population data reflect the continuing decline, without other
compelling information, harvest restrictions are likely.
23. Other
A. Compensatory Days
In some states, state law or constitutional provisions prohibit
Sunday hunting. These states have asked the Service to allow them to
``add on'' days to ``compensate'' their hunters for these lost days. In
the past, the Service has maintained the policy that there is no
biological basis for prohibiting hunting on Sundays and believed this
problem was an individual State issue, which could best be resolved by
each State removing their self-imposed restrictions (September 24,
1993, Federal Register, 58 FR 50188). However, two years ago during the
early-season regulations meeting, June 21, 1995, the Service agreed to
work with the Atlantic Flyway Council to review and clarify various
technical and policy concerns relating to the issue of offering
compensatory days to those States that restrict Sunday hunting.
Subsequently, on December 18, 1996, in Hadley, Massachusetts, the
Service met with several Atlantic Flyway Council representatives to
continue its efforts to resolve this issue. Although no final decisions
were made, the Service did express its empathy with the problem and the
difficulty States have in resolving this issue at the individual State
level. During the 1997-1998 regulatory cycle, the Service will continue
to work with the Atlantic Flyway Council to address several policy and
technical concerns and to explore potential solutions and appropriate
guidelines and/or criteria.
B. Bird Banding
About 10 years ago, the Service began a carefully-planned effort to
increase band-reporting rates, the proportion of bands recovered by
hunters that are reported to the Bird Banding Laboratory (now part of
the U.S. Geological Survey's Biological Resources Division). In the
initial phase, current band-reporting rates were estimated and sources
of variability identified. The second phase is a large-scale effort to
increase band-reporting rates, with associated studies designed to
assess the magnitude of the increase. This phase was begun in 1993
using bands inscribed with a more complete return address. In 1995, the
Service, in conjunction with the Bird Banding Laboratory, conducted a
study of the effects of using a toll-free telephone number on the
reporting of bands from mallard ducks recovered by hunters. In 1996,
bands with the 1-800-327-BAND phone number were placed on most
preseason-banded mallards. The new toll-free number was advertised in
State regulation brochures and magazines. In 1997, plans are to place
the new bands on most preseason-banded ducks and geese. The goal is to
have the phone number widely disseminated so that the transition time
to this new way of reporting bands is as short a period as possible.
The Service requests that State assist in advertising the new phone
number and suggests the inclusion of the number in all State waterfowl
regulations brochures. Other outreach efforts by the States, such as
inclusion of the number in State magazines and other information and
education efforts is encouraged.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-F
[[Page 12060]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13MR97.022
[[Page 12061]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13MR97.023
[FR Doc. 97-6486 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
