[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14720-14723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6904]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
RIN 0596-AA
Use of Bait in Hunting
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; adoption of final policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service gives notice of its final policy on the use
of bait in hunting resident game on National Forest System lands. This
policy has been issued to Agency employees as an amendment to the
Forest Service Manual 2640. The intended effect of the final policy is
to clarify the Agency's role with regard to baiting in relation to the
role of the States and, thus, to provide a consistent approach to the
regulation of baiting resident game on National Forest System lands.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This policy is effective March 20, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about this policy should be
addressed to Robert Nelson, Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants Staff,
Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, D.C. 20090-6090,
(202) 205-1205.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 14, 1994, the Forest Service published a proposed policy
on the Agency's role in regulating the placement of bait to attract
resident game on National Forest System lands (59 FR 17758). Public
comment was invited. The comment period closed June 13, 1994.
The focus of the proposed policy was that the Forest Service would
continue to honor State regulations of fish and wildlife populations,
including hunting and hunting practices. Where baiting is allowed by
States, the practice would continue on National Forest System lands
unless the authorized officer was to determine on a site-specific basis
that the use of bait conflicts with Federal laws or regulations, forest
plan direction, or other uses or users. In such case, the authorized
officer could prohibit or restrict use of bait, in an area, by issuing
a closure order. However, the authorized officer would first consult
with the State fish and wildlife agency to see if the conflict could be
resolved without a closure or restrictive order.
During the public comment period, the Forest Service received 1,249
comments on the proposed policy. Comments were received from 76 groups
and private organizations, 29 State fish and wildlife agencies, 1
American Indian Tribal government, 1 Federal agency, and from private
citizens located in 46 States and the District of Columbia. Of the
total comments received, 86 percent were from individuals representing
themselves. Forty-five percent of the comments agreed with the proposed
policy either in its entirety or with suggested modifications, while
fifty-one percent did not support the proposed policy. The analysis of
the public comments was accomplished using standard Forest Service
procedures designed to ensure an objective and systematic analysis. The
Agency has considered these comments and, in response, where
appropriate the Agency is adopting modifications in the final policy. A
summary of the comments received and the Agency's response to them
follows.
Summary of Comments Received
Form letters and modified form letters made up 61 percent of the
1,249 total comments. The majority of these letters were not directed
at specific provisions of the policy; rather, most of these comments
objected to the practice of baiting in hunting but did not address
State and Federal roles in the administration of a hunting practice.
These respondents simply stated that they were against the use of bait
in hunting and that this practice should not be allowed on National
Forest System lands. Among reasons cited were that bait is detrimental
to the non-hunting recreation experience; and bait may cause pollution
or may be a risk to human health and safety. Other topics addressed
were the need for environmental documentation under the National
Environmental Policy Act, State versus Federal jurisdiction over
wildlife resources, population decimation and species viability,
threatened and endangered species being killed, conditioning of
wildlife to human food sources, and disruption of biological diversity
and ecological processes.
A summary of specific comments by broad subject and the Agency's
response to these comments follows.
1. Comment: Impact of Baiting on Recreation. A number of
respondents feel that baiting causes a garbage problem, is detrimental
to recreation experience, is a source of pollution, and poses health
and safety risks. The reviewers feel that baiting has a negative impact
on the majority of forest users and, therefore, grants a small group
``special advantages on land meant to be enjoyed by all.''
Response: The fact that an activity is enjoyed by a minority of
forest users does not mean that the activity should be banned. The
Forest Service has consistently cooperated with State agencies to help
them develop regulations that minimize conflict between hunters using
baits and other forest users. Under the proposed policy, the Forest
Service would close specific [[Page 14721]] areas to baiting if
conflicts cannot be resolved with the State agencies regarding the
protection of Federal resources and uses, including recreation. This
has been retained in the final policy.
2. Comment: Retention of Baiting Practices. Many reviewers
characterized bear baiting as ``disgusting,'' ``offensive,''
``revolting,'' ``repulsive,'' ``inhumane,'' ``unsporting,'' and
``unethical.'' These persons feel strongly that the practice of baiting
should be outlawed on National Forest System lands.
Response. While the Agency respects the reviews of those who object
to baiting, the final policy is not intended to determine whether or
not the practice of using bait in hunting is to be allowed on National
Forest System lands, but whether the use of bait needs regulation by
the Forest Service beyond that required by the State. The practice of
placing bait (food or scent to attract wildlife) is a hunting activity
subject to State law and regulations. Federal land management statutes
acknowledge the States' traditional role in managing fish and wildlife;
see the National Forest System Organic Administration Act at 16 U.S.C.
480, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act at 16 U.S.C. 528, the Sikes
Act at 16 U.S.C. 670h, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,
at 43 U.S.C. 1732. Generally, the use of bait in hunting is not
contrary to Federal interests. The final policy acknowledges the State
fish and wildlife agencies' authority to adopt hunting regulations and
provides for Federal action if State regulations do not protect Federal
interests.
3. Comment: Clarity of Policy. Several reviewers felt that the
reasons for closing an area to baiting were not clearly stated in the
proposed policy. In addition, concerns were raised that the policy
would not require review of State regulation and that Forest Service
officers therefore would not identify problems that would be the basis
for closure actions.
Response. In consideration of these comments, the Forest Service
has modified the April 14, 1994 proposal to emphasize the Agency's
intent to monitor State regulations. Such monitoring is a routine
practice under Agency Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with State
wildlife agencies. Direction to Forest Service employees on entering
into and operating under such MOU's is set out in a different chapter
of FSM 2600 than the use of bait policy. Nevertheless, Forest Service
monitoring of State regulations has been emphasized in the FSM 2640
baiting use policy as a show of good faith to those who raised the
concern about Forest Service review of State regulations. It should
also be pointed out that, in the day-to-day monitoring of activities on
National Forest System lands, Agency employees will be aware of
practices under those regulations that appear to conflict with land and
resource management plan standards and guidelines, which must be
consistent with Federal law. The final policy makes explicit the
circumstances under which the authorized officer must close an area to
baiting as follows:
a. The State laws and regulations on placement of bait are not
adequate to protect forest land or other resources or users in a
particular location. The determination of the adequacy of State laws
and regulations shall be based on consideration of the likely impact of
baiting on such matters as water quality, public health and safety, the
potential for litter, sanitation problems, or the potential to threaten
the viability of wildlife;
b. The effects of baiting are inconsistent with direction in the
applicable forest plan; or
c. The State laws and regulations conflict with Federal law, such
as the Endangered Species Act.
2. Where the authorized officer determines that baiting should be
restricted or prohibited, the following actions are necessary:
a. The officer shall immediately inform the State fish and wildlife
agency of the determination; and
b. If, after consultation and coordination, the State is unable to
resolve the matter with the Forest Service, the authorized officer
shall close the area to baiting or otherwise restrict baiting by
issuing an order pursuant to Part 261 of Title 36 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 261).''
4. Comment: Impact on American Indians. Two reviewers specifically
asked what impact the proposed policy would have on American Indian
Tribes and their treaty rights regarding hunting and fishing.
Response. The final policy will not affect valid treaty rights
reserved to American Indian Tribes on National Forest System lands. An
explicit statement to this effect has been added to the final policy.
5. Comment: Impact on Protection of Inventoried Resources. Some
reviewers expressed the view that the proposed policy would not allow
the Forest Service to adequately ``protect inventoried resources''
required by the National Forest Management Act.
Response. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) and the
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) directs the Forest Service to
manage and conserve the land and resources of the National Forest
System for multiple uses. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA)
specifically maintains the States' traditional wildlife management
roles with regard to fish and wildlife on National Forest System lands.
Accordingly, the final policy (2643.12) establishes the conditions
under which Federal action will be taken when State regulations are not
sufficiently protective and incorporates procedures for consulting with
the responsible State agencies to ensure that Federal interests are
protected.
6. Comment: National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
Compliance. The Forest Service, has made a preliminary finding using a
Categorical Exclusion, but a number of respondents believe that an
Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) is required because the proposed policy is highly controversial,
and in the view of these respondents, a major Federal action of wide
scope that will have a significant impact on wildlife.
Response. In publishing the proposed policy, the Agency indicated
that its preliminary conclusion was that the proposal should be
categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS. However
after reviewing the public comments received during the 60-day comment
period, the Forest Service prepared an Environmental Assessment and
based on a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), has determined
that an EIS is not needed. A copy of the environmental assessment,
decision notice and FONSI may be obtained by calling the number listed
earlier in this notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
7. Comment: Use of Special Use Permits. Several reviewers indicated
that the agency should issue special use permits for baiting and that
this process would alleviate some of the problems associated with bear
baiting, such as litter.
Response. As noted in the preamble to the proposed policy, some
Forest Service units have used special use permits in the past to
regulate baiting. However, the policy review that has been undertaken
over the past few years has clearly shown that the issuance of special
use permits is not appropriate. Specifically, the Forest Service
special use authorization regulations at 36 CFR 251.50 exempt certain
noncommercial use and occupancy, including [[Page 14722]] ``hunting,''
from the special use authorization requirement.
This was the basis for the provision in the April 14, 1994 proposed
policy stating, ``Special use authorizations shall not be issued for
placing bait on National Forest System lands for hunting purposes (36
CFR 251.50(c)).'' However, since the final policy now clearly indicates
the circumstances and process by which the authorized officer may
restrict or prohibit baiting through the use of closure orders, the
explicit prohibition on the issuance of special use permits to regulate
baiting is unnecessary and, therefore, has not been retained in the
final policy.
8. Comment: State Jurisdiction Over National Forest System Land.
Many reviewers felt that State wildlife agencies should not be given
control over hunting practices on NFS lands.
Response. As noted in the notice of proposed policy, Federal land
management statutes acknowledge the States' traditional role in
managing fish and wildlife. The Forest Service, therefore, is generally
reluctant to override State fish and wildlife regulation, except where
Federal interest, such as protection of forest land, resources, and
users, require Federal intervention. The practice of placing bait is a
hunting activity subject to State laws and regulations and the final
policy retains the explicit statement to this effect.
9. Comment: Impact on Grizzly Bear and Other At Risk Species. One
group indicated that it was greatly concerned about the direct and
indirect danger of mortality posed to grizzly bear and other at-risk,
threatened, and endangered species in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
by the practice of baiting for bear.
Response. States as well as Federal agencies have extensive
responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act to conserve resident
species determined to be endangered or threatened. If State regulations
are adequate to protect grizzly bears or any other threatened or
endangered species, no action is needed by the Forest Service. The
final policy will not allow any practices that would endanger any
species. By interagency agreement, and the policy already stated in
FSM, 2676.16b, for baiting for black bear hunting is as follows:
``Reduce the potential for preventable mortality on National
Forest System lands by enforcing the Inter-agency [Grizzly Bear]
Guidelines which specify no baiting for black bear hunting in areas
designated as Management Situation 1(FSM 2676.11, ex. 1). Make this
information available to hunters at Forest Service offices and at
campsites in black bear hunting areas. Work with appropriate State
wildlife law enforcement officials to ensure compliance.
Work with State wildlife agencies toward the elimination of
baiting for black bear hunting in Management Situation 2 areas where
grizzlies are know or are likely to occur. Inform black bear hunters
in Management Situation 2 areas about the risk of shooting a grizzly
bear (as a result of mistaking it for a black bear) that may be
attracted to the bait.''
10. Comment: Human Health and Safety. A number of reviewers felt
that baiting will cause an increase in conflicts between bears and
people, creating human health and safety issues.
Response. There is no evidence that baiting increases human-
wildlife conflicts; moreover, the final policy specifically provides
that the Forest Service, may close an area to baiting in cases where a
threat to human health and safety from conflicts with bears, are likely
to arise.
11. Comment: Impact on Other Wildlife. One frequently raised
concern is that other species will be attracted to bait stations only
to be shot or otherwise harmed. These respondents assert that baiting
practices will lead to wildlife being conditioned to search for
unnatural food sources, thereby increasing the prevalence of campsite
raids and other conflicts.
Response. It is possible that wildlife species other than black
bears could be attracted to baits. Such an occurrence does not
necessarily mean that the species would be either shot or harmed.
Baiting actually improves the chance that the hunted species is clearly
identified before being shot, and therefore should improve the chances
that other species are not shot accidentally.
Bears do not become conditioned to baits. Bear baits are temporary
features. Once the bait is removed, bears revert to natural foods.
However if the authorized officer determined that the State law and
regulations on placement of bait are not adequate to protect other
wildlife in a particular location, the area could be closed to baiting.
The policy provides explicitly that the determination of the adequacy
of State laws and regulations shall be based on consideration of the
likely impact of baiting on such matters as water quality, public
health and sanitation, the potential for litter, or the potential to
threaten the viability of wildlife.
12. Comment: Ecosystem Management. A number of respondents
commented that bear baiting has negative implications for ecosystem
management and disrupts the social and ecological balance of the forest
environment.
Response. Where properly regulated, baiting is not known to affect
ecological processes. Forest Service management of the National Forest
System is aimed at promoting the sustainability of ecosystems. The
Agency's land ethic is to promote the sustainability of ecosystems by
ensuring their health, diversity, and productivity. Ecosystem
management is based on resource sustainability and recognizes that
people are part of ecosystem management. The Agency believes this is
fully consistent with its purpose and mission and therefore no change
is made to the policy in response to this concern.
Conclusion
Having considered the comments received, the Forest Service is
adopting a final policy on the use of bait on National Forest System
lands. The policy retains the long-standing reliance on State
regulation of baiting resident game. Where State law and regulation
permit baiting the practice is permitted on National Forest System
lands unless the authorized officer determines on a site specific basis
that the practice conflicts with Federal laws or regulations, or forest
plan direction, or would adversely affect other forest uses or users.
The text of the final policy as it is being issued to Forest Service
employees is set out at the end of this notice.
Environmental Analysis
An environmental assessment was prepared to identify the
environmental effects of this policy and three alternative baiting
policies. A finding of no significant impact (FONSI) was made,
documenting that there are no direct, indirect or cumulative
significant impacts to the human environment arising from the
implementation of this policy. A copy of the environmental assessment,
finding of no significant impact, and decision notice will be sent to
interested publics upon request.
Controlling Paperwork Burden On The Public
This policy will not result in additional paperwork. Therefore, the
review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.
3507) and implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.
Regulatory Impact
This policy has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive
Order 12888 on Federal Regulations. It has been determined that this is
not a significant policy.
[[Page 14723]] Dated: March 15, 1995.
David G. Unger,
Associate Chief.
Forest Service Manual
Chapter 2640--Stocking and Harvesting Amendment No. 95-2600
(Note: The Forest Service organizes its directive system by alpha-
numeric codes and subject headings. Only those sections of the
Forest Service Manual that are relevant to this notice are set out
here. The final policy also includes minor revisions to existing
codes and subject headings. The audience for this direction is
Forest Service employees responsible for coordinating wildlife
management on National Forest System lands with State fish and
wildlife agencies.)
2643--Applicability of State Fish and Wildlife Laws and
Regulations. The Forest Service actively cooperates in the
development of State fish and wildlife laws and regulations and may
assist in the enforcement of State fish and wildlife laws on
National Forest System lands. Pursuant to FSM 2610, Regional
Foresters shall ensure that memorandums with State fish and wildlife
agencies recognize the role of the Forest Service in cooperating in
the development of State fish and wildlife laws and regulations,
especially those addressing hunting, fishing, and trapping as they
would apply to occupancy and use of National Forest System lands.
2643.1--Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Regulations. Hunting,
fishing, and trapping of fish and wildlife and associated practices
on National Forest System lands are subject to State fish and
wildlife laws and regulations, unless one or both of the following
apply:
1. State fish and wildlife laws and regulations conflict with
Federal laws; or
2. State laws and regulations would permit activities that
conflict with land and resource management responsibilities of the
Forest Service or that are inconsistent with direction in forest
plans.
2643.12--Use of Bait for Resident Game Hunting. The use of bait
for the purpose of taking resident game on National Forest System
lands in a hunting practice.
The practice is prohibited on National Forest System lands where
State hunting regulations prohibit its use. Where States permit the
use of bait for attracting resident game, this activity is allowed
on National Forest System lands, subject to State hunting laws and
regulation, unless the authorized officer determines on a site-
specific basis that there is a need to prohibit or restrict the
practice.
1. The authorized officer shall continually monitor State
hunting regulations with regard to the use of bait. A site-specific
restriction or prohibition on baiting shall occur when the
authorized officer determines that one or more of the following
circumstances exists:
a. The State laws and regulations on placement of bait are not
adequate to protect forest land, other resources, or users in a
particular location. The determination of the adequacy of State laws
and regulations shall be based on consideration of the likely impact
of baiting on such matters as water quality, public health and
safety, the potential for litter, sanitation problems, or the
potential to threaten the viability of wildlife;
b. The effects of baiting are not consistent with direction in
the applicable forest plan; and
c. The State laws and regulations conflict with Federal law,
such as the Endangered Species Act.
2. Where the authorized officer determines that baiting must be
restricted or prohibited, the following actions are necessary:
a. The officer shall immediately inform the State fish and
wildlife agency of the determination; and
b. If, after consultation and coordination, the State is unable
to resolve the matter with the Forest Service, the authorized
officer shall close the area to baiting or otherwise restrict
baiting by issuing an order pursuant to Part 261 of Title 36 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 261).
3. Where the hunting season is underway and it would be
impracticable to issue an order to close an area to baiting, the
authorized officer shall take such measures as appropriate and
practicable to ensure consistency with forest plan management
direction; compliance with Federal laws, orders, and regulations;
and protection of forest users and resources. For example, the
officer might close a road or gate to restrict access.
Closure of an area to baiting is not the only way to address the
practice of baiting. It is expected that land managers as part of
their day-to-day management of National Forest System lands and
resources will be cognizant of the effects of hunting activities and
take such proactive measures as may be necessary to ensure resource
protection. Also hunter education programs could be implemented in
consultation with the State agencies.
The policy in this section, in and of itself, does not compel an
authorized officer to undertake a specific decision to allow baiting
on National Forest System lands in those States where the practice
is permitted. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect
valid existing treaty rights of American Indian Tribes. For the
purposes of this section and to assure consistency in coordination
of national forest wildlife matters with State agencies, the
authorized officer is the Regional Forester or Forest Supervisor
responsible for executing memorandums of understanding with the
State wildlife agency (FSM 2610).
[FR Doc. 95-6904 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
