[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49232-49235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23925]
[[Page 49231]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 20
Establishment of a Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day for the 1996-97
Migratory Game Bird Hunting Season; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 18, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 49232]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AD69
Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Rule on the Establishment of a
Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day for the 1996-97 Migratory Game Bird Hunting
Season
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter the Service)
proposed in an earlier document (August 15, 1996, Federal Register 61
FR 42500) the establishment of a special youth waterfowl hunting day
for the 1996-97 duck-hunting season. This final rule contains final
frameworks for the special youth waterfowl hunting day from which
States may select season dates, limits, and other options for the 1996-
97 duck-hunting seasons. The effect of this final rule is to facilitate
the selection of a youth hunting day by the States to further the
annual establishment of the migratory bird hunting regulations. State
selections will be published in the Federal Register as amendments to
Sec. 20.105 of title 50 CFR part 20.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule takes effect on September 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: States should send their season selections to: 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. The public may inspect comments during normal
business hours in room 634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Schmidt, Chief, Office of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-
1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations Schedule for 1996
On March 22, 1996, the Service published in the Federal Register
(61 FR 11992) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal dealt
with the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for
migratory game birds under Secs. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and
20.110 of subpart K. On June 13, 1996, the Service published in the
Federal Register (61 FR 30114) a second document providing supplemental
proposals for early- and late-season migratory bird hunting regulations
frameworks, detailing information on the 1996-97 regulatory schedule,
and announcing the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and
Flyway Council meetings. On June 14, 1996, the Service published in the
Federal Register (61 FR 30490) a third document describing the
Service's proposed regulatory alternatives for the 1996-97 duck hunting
season and the Service's consideration of a proposed youth waterfowl
hunting day. On August 15, 1996, the Service published in the Federal
Register (61 FR 42500) a proposal for the establishment of a special
youth waterfowl hunting day.
This rulemaking prescribes the final framework for establishing a
youth waterfowl hunting day for the 1996-97 migratory bird hunting
season. The Service considered all comments received to date.
Written Comments Received
The Service's June 14 Federal Register contained a notice of
consideration and preliminary guidelines for establishing a special
youth waterfowl hunting day and opened a public comment period. The
Service received 145 comments specifically addressing the establishment
of a youth waterfowl hunting day. Comments, responses to comments, and
modifications to the preliminary guidelines were announced in the
August 15 Federal Register proposed rulemaking. The public comment
period on the proposed rule closed on August 26, 1996. As of August 30,
1996, the Service had received an additional 15 comments on the
proposed youth waterfowl hunting day. Comments and modifications to the
proposed guidelines announced in the August 15 Federal Register are
discussed below. The headings correspond to the numbered items in the
March 22 Federal Register.
1. Ducks
G. Special Seasons/Species Management
Written Comments: The Ohio Division of Wildlife commended the
Service for its proposal to provide a special day of hunting for young
hunters.
The Pennsylvania Game Commission (Pennsylvania) fully supported the
concept of a youth waterfowl hunting day. They believed a day devoted
for youth to experience and learn about waterfowl hunting would serve
to foster involvement and support for waterfowl conservation. They
further believed that youth should be encouraged to participate in
these activities and that the continued conservation of all migratory
birds depends on the future attitudes and actions of youth. While they
supported the Service's proposed guidelines, Pennsylvania requested
that licensing requirements for the accompanying adult be left to the
discretion of the individual State. They also requested the Service
thoroughly evaluate harvest and hunter activity resulting from the
special youth hunt.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (Arkansas) was pleased that
the Service had proceeded with the youth hunting day initiative for the
1996-97 season and expected that the experiences shared by the
participants would increase the appreciation for natural resources.
However, Arkansas requested that the guidelines for selecting a youth
hunting day include primary and secondary school vacation days as well
as weekends and holidays.
The Georgia Wildlife Resources Division (Georgia) and the South
Carolina Department of Natural Resources (South Carolina) also
supported the special youth hunt concept, but were concerned about the
Service's proposed age limitation. While both States understood the age
requirements imposed by the Federal migratory waterfowl hunting stamp,
Georgia believed that the Service's proposed youth participation age of
15 or younger would serve to complicate an already complex issue. Both
States recommended final frameworks that allow States to select the
most appropriate participation age.
An individual from Wisconsin supported the proposal for a special
youth waterfowl hunting day, citing the educational opportunities for
young people to experience safe, high-quality waterfowl hunting.
An individual from Minnesota expressed concern about youth hunters
scaring birds, which would then not be available for the opening day of
the regular duck season. Further, he supported allowing the
accompanying adult to carry a gun to facilitate the pursuit of crippled
birds.
Another individual from Minnesota opposed establishing a special
youth hunt because of the special status granted youth, the disruption
of the regular season opening, and the potential abuses of the special
hunt by accompanying adults.
The Animal Care and Welfare (ACW), two individuals from Virginia,
one person from New York, one individual from Wisconsin, and one person
from California opposed the establishment of a special youth hunting
day. Collectively, they believed the Service should represent the views
of both hunters and nonhunters. The ACW and two of the commenters
believed the
[[Page 49233]]
Service was acting as a public relations recruiting firm for hunters.
They believed the Service should encourage youths to participate in
nonconsumptive wildlife recreation, such as wildlife photography,
rather than hunting. Several commenters also noted that the mallard
population slightly decreased last year and as such, believed it
biologically reckless of the Service to increase hunting pressure.
The Fund for Animals, Inc. (FFA) opposed the establishment of a
youth waterfowl hunting day and protested the public and regulatory
process under which the Service was considering the proposal. FFA
objected to the short public comment period and believed the Service
had already decided to implement the proposal and was merely going
through the motions of public comment to satisfy legal requirements.
Further, FFA believed the Service lumped comments together and did not
adequately discuss or respond to comments of opposition in the August
15 proposed rule. Such action, FFA argued, suggests the Service does
not consider ethical and moral concerns deserving of serious
consideration. The FFA also questioned States actions of setting season
dates and bag limits based on the Service's proposed frameworks and
urged the Service to issue regulations prohibiting States from
anticipating Service actions. The FFA stated that this practice
reflected adversely on the integrity and credibility of the Service's
rulemaking process. The FFA urged the Service to extend the comment
period and to hold public hearings specifically on this initiative.
The FFA also objected to the Service's proposed youth hunt for
social, moral, and ethical reasons. FFA believed the promotion of youth
hunting was not an appropriate endeavor for the Federal government. FFA
argued the Service should not encourage violence and killing, but
should teach children to be kind to animals. As an alternative, the FFA
proposed the Service sponsor a youth waterfowl photography day, arguing
that such a day would have broader public support. Further, FFA
commented that inexperienced youth hunters would result in a higher
bird wounding rate and that the Service should establish a minimum
participation age of 14 or 15. Lastly, FFA noted that since the
recovery of the duck population was still questionable, there should be
no increase in harvest.
Service Response: The Service appreciates the comments and
suggestions of the various States, organizations, and individuals
regarding the establishment of a youth waterfowl hunting day. While the
Service recognizes there are organizations and individuals opposed to
this proposal on the basis of general opposition to hunting, the
Service believes recreational sport hunting is a wise and compatible
use of our nation's renewable natural resources. As the Service
previously stated, we recognize the valuable contributions of both
hunters and non-hunters to natural resource conservation. However, the
Service is mandated by various legislation to provide for the long-term
conservation of migratory birds and, to regulate the hunting of
migratory birds, including waterfowl. The Service encourages youth
participation in all wildlife-oriented recreational activity, non-
consumptive as well as consumptive.
Traditionally, the Service has viewed its role as including the
permitting of recreational harvest opportunities consistent with long-
term resource conservation for all Americans. To meet this objective,
the Service believes a well-educated and properly trained hunting
constituency is in the best interest of long-term resource
conservation. Thus, the Service views the establishment of a youth
hunting day as a unique educational opportunity which will help ensure
safe, high-quality hunting for future generations of Americans. The
Service's intent is not to recruit youth hunters, but to provide the
best and safest learning environment for our youth who are interested
in hunting.
Further, the Service believes establishing such a day is consistent
with our responsibility to provide general education and training in
the wise use of our nation's valuable wildlife resources. The Service
believes the long-term conservation of North America's migratory bird
resources depends on the future attitudes and actions of today's youth
and that the special youth day will assist in the formation and
development of a conservation ethic in future generations. The
Service's intent in establishing this special day is 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 the long-term conservation of
the migratory bird resource.
While the Service understands the various comments from the States
regarding the age requirements of the participating youth and FFA's
request to establish a minimum participating age, we continue to
believe that any age criteria should be consistent with previous
definitions of youth hunters established in other Federal legislation.
Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1934, a youth is defined
as a person less than 16 years of age. To maintain consistency and to
avoid confusion in this initial trial year, the Service believes that
this definition should be employed for the youth hunting day. However,
the Service is committed to working with the States and the Flyway
Councils on this criterion prior to any proposed youth hunt next year.
Regarding Arkansas' request that guidelines for selecting a youth
day include school vacation days, the inclusion of primary and
secondary school vacation days seems logical and meets the Service's
original intent of affording the maximum opportunity for participation
by youth hunters. Thus, the Service has revised the final guidelines
accordingly to reflect this modification.
Regarding FFA's comment on the abbreviated comment period and their
request for an extension, the Service reminds them that the rulemaking
process for migratory game bird hunting operates under severe time
constraints. However, the Service has repeatedly stated that it intends
that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to comment.
Thus, when the Service announced its intent to consider establishing a
youth waterfowl hunting day in the June 14 Federal Register and its
proposal for a youth day in the August 15 Federal Register, the Service
established what it believed were the longest periods possible for
public comment and input. In light of the fact that the Service sought
and received significant public comment in the development and
establishment of this special youth hunt, we believe that allowing a
comment period past the already established closing date is contrary to
the public interest. Further, extending the comment period would not
allow the States sufficient time to select season dates, to communicate
those selections to the Service, and to establish and publicize the
regulations and procedures necessary to implement their decisions. The
Service has given every consideration to the comments and has decided
to finalize the proposal for the reasons stated. Because it has
provided the two comment periods referred to above, the Service
believes it has provided adequate opportunity for public comment and
has decided not to extend the comment period or hold public hearings.
To do so would delay this beneficial resource-oriented educational
opportunity.
Regarding FFA's belief that the Service lumped comments together
and
[[Page 49234]]
did not provide adequate discussion or response, the Service indicates
for the record that it considered all comments received on both the
notice of consideration and the proposed rule. Time, space, and costs
prevent us from providing an individual response to each commenter on
duplicative issues.
With regard to FFA's comment on State adoption of its own
regulations based on anticipated Federal final action, we note that
States take those actions on their own with the risk that they may have
to amend their regulations if the Federal final action differs from the
proposal. The Service is in no way bound by or constrained by such
State action.
Several commenters incorrectly noted that duck populations slightly
decreased from last year, and as such, the Service should not increase
hunting pressure. The Service notes that the 1996 estimate of total
ducks in the traditional survey area was 37.5 million, an increase of 5
percent from that in 1995 and 16 percent higher than the long-term
average. Further, the total duck fall flight forecast is approximately
89.5 million birds, compared to 77 million last year. This estimate is
the highest recorded since calculations were initiated in 1970 and 16
percent higher than last year. Because the special 1-day hunt would be
limited to youths, the Service believes that waterfowl populations can
support the additional harvest.
The Service will continue to evaluate this opportunity annually,
including an assessment of possible expansion and the need for
additional criteria. The Service believes this opportunity should be
offered during the 1996-97 hunting season and that further dialogue and
refinements can be incorporated in future years.
Therefore, the Service is establishing the following guidelines for
the 1996-97 season:
1. States may select 1 day per duck-hunting zone, designated as
``Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day'', in addition to their regular duck
seasons.
2. The day must be held outside any regular duck season on
either a weekend, holiday, or other non-school day when youth
hunters would have the maximum opportunity to participate.
3. The day could be held up to 10 days before or after any
regular duck-season frameworks or within any split of a regular duck
season.
4. The daily bag limit may include ducks, mergansers, coots,
moorhens, and gallinules and would be the same as that allowed in
the regular season. Flyway species restrictions would remain in
effect.
5. Youth hunters must be 15 years of age or younger.
6. An adult at least 18 years of age must accompany the youth
hunter into the field. This adult could not duck hunt but may
participate in other seasons that are open on the special youth day.
7. The special youth hunt day will be considered a trial for the
1996-97 season and will be evaluated by the Service.
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 EPA on June 9, 1988. The Service published a Notice
of Availability in the June 16, 1988, Federal Register (53 FR 22582).
The Service published its Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR
31341). Copies of these documents are available from the Service at the
address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
As in the past, the Service designs hunting regulations to remove
or alleviate chances of conflict between migratory game bird hunting
seasons and the protection and conservation of endangered and
threatened species. Consultations have been conducted to ensure that
actions resulting from these regulations will not likely jeopardize the
continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat.
Findings from these consultations are included in a biological opinion
and may have caused modification of some regulatory measures previously
proposed. The final frameworks reflect any modifications. The Service's
biological opinions resulting from its Section 7 consultation are
public documents available for public inspection in the Service's
Division of Endangered Species and MBMO, at the address indicated under
the caption ADDRESSES.
Regulatory Flexibility Act; Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the
Paperwork Reduction Act
In the March 22, 1996, Federal Register, the Service reported
measures it took to comply with requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and E.O. 12866. One measure was to prepare a Small
Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) documenting the significant
beneficial economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
The Analysis 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. This rule was not subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.
The Service examined these proposed regulations under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and found no information collection requirements.
Regulations Promulgation
The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting must, by its
nature, operate under severe time constraints. However, the Service
intends that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to
comment on the regulations. Thus, when the proposed rulemaking was
published, the Service established what it believed were the longest
periods possible for public comment. In doing this, the Service
recognized that when the comment period closed, time would be of the
essence. That is, if there were a delay in the effective date of these
regulations after this final rulemaking, the States would have
insufficient time to select season dates; to communicate those
selections to the Service; and to establish and publicize the necessary
regulations and procedures to implement their decisions.
Therefore, the Service, under authority of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (July 3, 1918), as amended, (16 U.S.C. 703-711), prescribes
final frameworks setting forth the species to be hunted, the daily bag
and possession limits, the shooting hours, the season lengths, the
earliest opening and latest closing season dates, and hunting areas,
from which State conservation agency officials may select hunting
season dates and other options. Upon receipt of season and option
selections from these officials, the Service will publish in the
Federal Register a final rulemaking amending 50 CFR part 20 to reflect
seasons, limits, and shooting hours for the conterminous United States
for the 1996-97 season.
The Service therefore finds that ``good cause'' exists, within the
terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and
these frameworks will, therefore, take effect immediately upon
publication.
Unfunded Mandates
The Service has determined and certifies in compliance with the
requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that
this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any
given year on local or State government or private entities.
[[Page 49235]]
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined
that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in
Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
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 1996-97
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712, and 16 U.S.C.
742 a--j.
Dated: September 11, 1996.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-23925 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-F
