# Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program; Final Rule DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-26044

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** October 21, 1994

## Text

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and State wildlife
agencies (States) are cooperatively establishing a national Migratory
Bird Harvest Information Program (Program) in which migratory game bird
hunters will be required to participate by supplying their names,
addresses, and other necessary information to the hunting licensing
authority of the State in which they hunt. Hunters will be required to
have evidence of current participation in the Program on their person
while hunting migratory game birds. The quality and extent of
information about harvests of migratory game birds must be improved in
order to better manage these populations. Hunters' names and addresses
will be used to provide a sampling frame for a voluntary survey which
will improve harvest estimates for migratory game birds.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule takes effect on October 21, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert L. Jessen, Migratory Bird
Harvest Information Program Coordinator, Office of Migratory Bird
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (301) 497-5980, FAX (301)
497-5981.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this final rule is to
facilitate the collection of needed information about the harvest of
migratory game birds. A proposed rule was published on March 14, 1994
at 59 FR 11838. This final rule revises the migratory bird hunting
regulations to require hunters, as a condition for hunting migratory
game birds, to annually provide their names, addresses, and other
necessary information to the licensing authority of the State in which
they hunt. This information will provide a sampling frame for the
national Migratory Bird Harvest Survey that the Service will conduct
annually.
The Service and States are currently implementing this Program over
a 5-year period, starting with the 1994-95 hunting season. During this
implementation, the requirement to participate in the Program will not
apply on Federal Indian Reservations or to tribal members hunting on
ceded lands. The participating States will provide the names,
addresses, and other necessary information obtained from licensed
hunters. During the implementation phase the Service will work with the
States to investigate and develop alternative methods for obtaining
information about unlicensed hunters to facilitate their inclusion in
the sample frame upon full implementation. The Program will be
evaluated to determine the adequacy and timeliness of the sample and
the time burden, cost, and other impacts on hunters, State license
agents, States, and the Service.
The names, addresses, and other information for an adequate sample
of hunters are needed in time for hunting record forms to be
distributed to selected hunters before they forget the details of their
hunts. Because of this fundamental need, States have only a short time
to provide hunter names and addresses. The approaches used by different
States will be compared. Minimum survey standards will be developed
during the next 2 years to ensure the quality of survey data. As each
new State is phased into the Program, an agreement will be developed
with each State in order to identify and resolve specific reporting or
data-capture problems. This will ensure that each State will be
providing reliable survey data and that no material biases are
incorporated into the system.
A Program validation (e.g., ``Migratory Bird Harvest Information
Program Participant'') will be printed on the annual State hunting
license or supplementary permit for those hunters who participate in
the Program. The State may charge these hunters a small handling fee to
compensate agents and to cover the State's administrative costs
associated with implementing the Program.
To reduce survey costs and to identify hunters who hunt less
commonly hunted species, migratory bird hunters will be asked the
following questions:
1. Will you hunt migratory game birds during [season]? [This
screening question is needed only if a State asks all hunters to
provide their names, addresses, and other information needed by the
Program].
2. Please check the birds you hunted last season in the United
States. [This list need only include migratory birds that are hunted in
the State.]

______ Ducks
______ Geese
______ Cranes
______ Coots
______ Snipe
______ Mourning doves
______ White-winged doves
______ Band-tailed pigeons
______ Woodcock
______ Rails/Gallinules

3. How many of these birds did you bag last season?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
None 1-10 11-30 31+
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ducks............................... ....... ....... ....... .......
Geese............................... ....... ....... ....... .......
Doves............................... ....... ....... ....... .......
Woodcock............................ ....... ....... ....... .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question #3 will identify which success category (e.g., none, 1-10,
etc.) a hunter was in during the previous year and will allow
stratification of the sample. A stratified sample (multiplying the
number of hunters in each category by the average seasonal bag per
hunter in that category and then adding the results for each category)
will provide a better estimate of total harvest and will not require as
large a sample size as a standard sample (multiplying the total number
of hunters by the average seasonal bag per hunter).
To protect hunters' privacy, it is the policy of the Service to use
the names and addresses only for conducting hunter surveys and for no
other purpose. All records of hunters' names and addresses will be
deleted after the surveys, and no permanent record of names and
addresses will be maintained by the Service. State uses of these names
and addresses will be governed by State laws.
The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) provides for a minimum of 30
days for a rule to become effective unless an agency, for good cause,
has reason to make it sooner. The Service and the States are currently
implementing this Program over a five year period at the request of the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. This rule will
add Maryland to the list of States already participating. Maryland has
implemented the requirements of this rule under State authority
effective September 1. Therefore, the Service finds good cause to make
this rule effective upon publication.

Review of Comments and the Service's Response

Comments on the proposed rule were received from 12 States. None of
the comments questioned the need for the Program or for improved
migratory bird harvest estimates; almost all expressed support for the
proposed changes to the Program. Two States requested delays in their
implementation date and four States requested advances in theirs. The
Program was supported by the States of Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma,
Texas and Vermont.

1. Impact of Procedures on State Wildlife Agencies

Comments: Arkansas pointed out that, overall, the Program will add
burdens to their Agency, license vendors, and sportsmen. They
recommended reducing the hunter questions.
Service Response: Changes as described in the Proposed Rule will
reduce the number of questions. Enrolling hunters in the State of
hunting eliminates questions concerning species not found in that
State. For example, band-tailed pigeons are restricted to western
States and this question will appear only in those States. This and
some combining of species, such as duck/coot, will reduce the number of
questions to roughly half of the original list.

2. Service Financial Support for the Program

Comment: Louisiana stated that the amount of financial support the
Service will provide States during the Implementation Phase appears to
be declining. They requested firm and substantial funding support from
the Service.
Service Response: This Program has always been viewed in the
context of a partnership with Federal and State funds being used to
implement the effort. The Service's initial estimate of financial
support for the Program was contingent upon approval of two funding
sources. One was from Federal Aid Administrative Funds at $500,000
annually for each of the first three years of the implementation phase.
The second was from the Service's annual appropriation which, in turn,
was contingent upon Congressional approval of the President's FY 1994
budget request of $750,000. The Administrative Funds were approved in
full, while the Congressional appropriation was reduced to $500,000.
The present schedule of payment for names and addresses is 30 cents per
hunter the first 2 years in the Program and 10 cents per hunter
thereafter.

3. Implementation Phase--Schedule of State Participation

Comments: Six States requested changes in their scheduled entry
into the Program. Four requested to be advanced and two to be delayed.
Maine requested to be moved ahead from 1998 to 1996. With the financial
assistance provided by the Service, Maine will be able to adopt an
automated system of issuing licenses. Oklahoma requested to move ahead
from 1996 to 1995. A change in State licensing procedures will
complement this agenda change. Vermont would like to advance to 1996
from their scheduled entry in 1998. Oregon has implemented a basic
system of electronic license sale and is prepared to enter the program
in 1995. Texas requested to move back from 1994 to 1995. Texas is
working on several license-system changes and would like to implement
these changes and the Harvest Information Program at the same time.
Georgia also requested to move back from 1995 to 1996. Georgia is
working toward a State program to improve their hunting and fishing
license procedures and would like to include implementation of the
Harvest Information Program at the same time.
Service Response: The Service has consistently encouraged States to
advance in the implementation schedule, while discouraging any delays.
The Service is encouraged by the advances proposed by Maine, Oklahoma,
Oregon, and Vermont, and will accommodate these changes in the
schedule. The proposed delays by Texas and Georgia are viewed as
setbacks to the Program. Both proposals, however, are premised on
improved license procedures that will better accommodate the Harvest
Information Program. The Service has made it clear that no schedule
changes will be made that cause financial disadvantage to other States
entering the Program. Therefore, a one-year delay will be granted for
these States with the understanding that a portion of their original
``start-up'' monies will be used to assist those States that are now
advancing in the schedule. The long-term ramification of delays in
State Program entry are being reviewed with the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

4. Limiting the Program Requirements to Licensed Hunters

Comments: Seven States specifically regarded this as a positive
change that would aid them in the implementation. Three implied support
by their broad agreement to changes. Two States had reservations.
Missouri expressed concern that with each exemption the quality of the
harvest estimate is reduced. They urged rigorous survey standards for
exempt categories of hunters. Maryland strongly encouraged the Service
to require that all migratory bird hunters participate in the Program.
Their concern is that serious bias may be introduced and that Program
credibility may, as a consequence, be in question.
Service Response: In general the Service agrees that under a State
licensing (permitting) system, exempt hunters must be enrolled by an
alternate survey procedure. The Service acknowledges that the migratory
bird harvest from all hunters is desirable and that unlicensed hunter
harvest must be addressed. The Service proposes to do this with
individual States as they enter the Program. The Program changes that
have evolved since its original design have replaced a Federal Permit
with a State Permit. This change places many States in the incongruous
role of requiring an action that under State law is specifically exempt
from a license requirement (e.g., hunters under 16 years of age). This
conflict is better addressed with individual States. Some States have
the authority to require non-licensed hunters to acquire permits, but
many do not. In response to the request for information on unlicensed
hunters, only Maine responded. In Maine, only hunters who hunt
exclusively on their own land are exempt from licensing. They estimate
this to be 0.3 percent of the hunter population (600 individuals) and
that their hunting is largely for deer. Migratory bird hunter harvest
would be ``negligible''.

5. Hunters Will Now Acquire Permits for Each State in Which They Hunt

Comments: All State comments were supportive of this change. They
varied from ``support'' to ``a significant improvement''.
Service Response: Program changes that evolved into issuance of a
State permit negated the notion of a Federal permit that would be valid
in all States. This change will also simplify questions by restricting
them to the species available in the State of hunting and generally
will be more cost-effective for the States.

NEPA Consideration

The establishment of this Harvest Information Program and options
have been considered in the ``Environmental Assessment: Migratory Bird
Harvest Information Program.'' Copies of this document are available
from the Service at the address indicated under the caption FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12866, and the Paperwork
Reduction Act

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review
under Executive Order 12866. This rule will not have a significant
effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
This rule may eventually affect about 5 million migratory game bird
hunters when it is fully implemented. It will require migratory game
bird hunters to supply their names, addresses, and other necessary
information to the State licensing authority in the State hunted in
order that they can be sampled for a voluntary national harvest survey.
Hunters will be required to have evidence of current participation in
the Program on their person while hunting migratory game birds.
The States may require a small handling fee to compensate their
hunting-license vendors and to cover their administrative costs. Many
of the State hunting-license vendors are small entities, but this rule
should not economically impact those vendors. Only migratory game bird
hunters (individuals) would be required to provide this information, so
this rule should not adversely affect small entities.
The collection of information contained in this rule has been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. and assigned clearance number 1018-0015. The information is
required from hunters to obtain the benefit of hunting migratory game
birds.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 0.015 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Comments regarding the burden estimate or
any other aspect of these reporting requirements should be directed to
the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, MS-224 ARLSQ,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC 20240, or the Office of
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 1018-0015,
Washington, DC 20503.

Executive Order (EO) 12612--Federalism

This regulation does not have significant federalism effects as
provided in EO 12612. Due to the migratory nature of certain species of
birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these
species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. State harvest surveys
presently cannot provide adequate national estimates of migratory game
bird harvests for the following reasons: Some States do not now conduct
annual harvest surveys or maintain accessible lists of hunter names and
addresses. Comparable information is not available from all States
because States have different licensing laws regulating who must buy a
hunting license and different survey procedures. The harvest of those
hunters who can legally hunt without an annual State license is
excluded from State estimates. Hunters might buy more than one type of
license in a single State and might buy licenses from more than one
State, introducing duplication problems. Currently, many State license
lists are not available in time to permit distribution of hunter
records early in the hunting season. Budget constraints often prevent
States from conducting harvest surveys during certain years or could
cause some States to eliminate them completely.
This rule does not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal
capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State
Governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore,
this regulation does not have significant federalism effects and do not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment. In fact, the Service would cooperate with States
in providing surveys to meet special management needs, and increased
cooperation between Federal and State Agencies would reduce duplication
of survey efforts.

Executive Order 12630--Taking of Individual Property Rights

Executive Order 12630 discussed guidelines for the taking of
individual property rights. This rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, does not affect any constitutionally-protected property
rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of
property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking
of any property.

Authorship

The primary author of this proposed rule is Robert L. Jessen,
working under the direction of Paul R. Schmidt, Chief, Office of
Migratory Bird Management.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 20 is amended
as set forth below.

PART 20--MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING

1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

Authority: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (July 3, 1918), as
amended, (16 U.S.C. 703-711); the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act
(November 8, 1978), as amended, (16 U.S.C. 712); and the Fish and
Wildlife Act of 1956 (August 8, 1956), as amended, (16 U.S.C. 742 a-
d and e-j).

2. Section 20.20 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) and
adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:

Sec. 20.20 Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program.

* * * * *
(b) Each person hunting migratory game birds in California,
Maryland, Missouri, and South Dakota shall have identified himself or
herself as a migratory bird hunter and given his or her name, address,
and date of birth to the respective State hunting licensing authority
and shall have on his or her person evidence, provided by that State,
of compliance with this requirement.
(c) Tribal exemptions. Nothing in paragraph (b) of this section
shall apply to tribal members on Federal Indian Reservations or to
tribal members hunting on ceded lands.
(d) State exemptions. Nothing in paragraph (b) of this section
shall apply to those hunters who are exempt from State-licensing
requirements in the State in which they are hunting.
(e) Implementation schedule. The Service is implementing this
Program over a 5-year period, 1994-1998, which will incorporate
approximately one-half million additional migratory bird hunters each
year. States must participate on or before the following schedule:

1995--Louisiana, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and
Texas
1996--Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi,
North Carolina, Tennessee, and Vermont
1997--Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, South
Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin
1998--Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Dated: September 27, 1994.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 94-26044 Filed 10-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-26044. Public record. Not legal advice.