Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Rule on the Establishment of a Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day for the 1996-97 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Season

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter the Service)

announced in an earlier document (June 14, 1996, Federal Register 61 FR

30490) that it was considering the establishment of a special youth

waterfowl hunting day for the 1996-97 duck-hunting season. This rule

describes the Service's proposal for the special youth hunting day.

DATES: The comment period on the proposed youth hunting day ends on

August 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Parties should submit written comments on the proposals 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. The public may inspect comments during normal

business hours in room 634, ARLSQ 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 July 22, 1996, the Service published in the Federal

Register (61 FR 37994) a fourth document which dealt specifically with

proposed early-season frameworks for the 1996-97 season.

The Service will publish final regulatory frameworks for early

seasons in late August, and proposals for late-season frameworks in

mid-August. The Service will publish final regulatory frameworks for

the establishment of a youth waterfowl hunting day in early September

and for late seasons on or about September 23, 1996.

This rule describes the Service's proposal to establish a youth

waterfowl hunting day. The Service has considered all comments received

to date on the notice of consideration and will consider all comments

on this proposal in the regulations-development process. The Service

will publish responses to all comments when developing a final

framework.

Written Comments Received

The preliminary proposed rulemaking, which appeared in the March 22

Federal Register, opened the public comment period for migratory bird

hunting regulations. As of July 30, 1996, the Service had received 190

comments; 145 of these specifically addressed the establishment of a

youth waterfowl hunting day. Comments and modifications to the

preliminary guidelines announced in the June 14 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

The June 14 Federal Register announcing the Service's intent to

consider proposing a youth waterfowl hunting day contained general

guidelines for its establishment. While the guidelines were preliminary

in nature, they were intended to provide a general foundation for

discussion and to facilitate public comment.

Written Comments: The Arizona Game and Fish Department (Arizona),

the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, the Kansas Department of

Wildlife and Parks, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources

(Michigan), 6 organizations, and 56 individuals supported the concept

of a special youth waterfowl hunting day, citing benefits both in terms

of educating youth about the outdoors and providing opportunities for

young people to have a high-quality waterfowling experience.

Eight organizations opposed the establishment of a ``Youth

Waterfowl Hunting Day'' for numerous social, moral, and ethical

reasons. Collectively, they believed that by promoting youth hunting,

the Service will contribute to human violence and animal abuse by

destroying children's innate respect for life and desensitizing them to

the killing of innocent creatures.

Three petitions with 53 signatures protested the Service's use of

both taxpayers' funds and staff time to institute a youth hunting day

that encourages hunting by young people.

Forty-two individuals commented that the Service should encourage

non-consumptive wildlife recreation, such as wildlife photography,

rather than promote sport hunting interests which represent only a

small segment of society. They suggested that the purpose of

establishing this program is to sell more hunting licenses that pay for

Service employees' salaries.

Four individuals supported the concept, but questioned the need for

a special youth-only waterfowl hunting day. They suggested that adults

may take a youth hunting at any time during the regular season and that

by designating a special youth hunting day, it would establish

precedent for other special-interest groups. They also feared that

early-season shooting would condition local ducks to hunting before the

start of the regular season. Further, they believed that enforcement of

a youth-only season would be a problem.

Twenty-three responses indicated general support for a one-day

youth waterfowl hunt, but recommended changes and/or modifications to

the timing, age, and accompanying adult requirements, bag limits,

season length, and species restrictions.

Michigan recommended that a special youth hunting day not be

restricted to the period 10 days before/after the regular duck season,

while the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (Illinois)

recommended that States be allowed to establish the hunt day within 14

days of the beginning or end of the regular season framework.

The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (Tennessee) suggested that

the special day be restricted to the period within the regular duck

season framework. One individual suggested that the special day should

occur on or near holidays to allow greater participation, while another

individual recommended the special day occur on Thanksgiving Day and

either the day

[[Page 42501]]

before or after. Illinois recommended that States be allowed to select

any non-school day for the hunt day and that a special day be allowed

for each established regular season duck zone. Texas, one organization,

and one individual recommended that up to two days be designated for

the special youth season. North Dakota recommended that the hunt be

expanded to more than one day.

The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (South Carolina)

recommended the upper age limit be 17. One individual recommended that

the upper age limitation for the youth not be restricted to 16. Another

individual recommended that the upper age limit be increased to 18

while another recommended it be lowered to 12 to 14. The Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin) and one individual

recommended a minimum age of 12.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (Texas), one organization,

and one individual recommended that the number of adults accompanying a

youth should not exceed three. Texas, Michigan, Illinois, one

organization, and one individual recommended that adult sponsors be

allowed to hunt ducks. Wisconsin and one individual recommended that

the accompanying adult be fully licensed, while Illinois and another

individual recommended that the accompanying adult not be required to

have a hunting license. Michigan recommended that the accompanying

adult's age be left to the discretion of each State. Illinois and one

organization recommended that the accompanying adult not be restricted

to parents or legal guardians of the youth. Two individuals recommended

that the role of the accompanying adult be clarified.

Texas, one organization, and one individual recommended that the

bag limit for the hunt day be the same as the regular duck season. The

North Dakota Game and Fish Department (North Dakota) recommended that

Flyway-specific species/sex restrictions be eliminated for this hunt,

while the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Minnesota)

recommended a 2- or 3-bird bag limit with no species restrictions.

Wisconsin, the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish & Parks (South

Dakota), Illinois, Arizona, Minnesota and one individual suggested that

geese should also be allowed during the hunt day. Arizona also

recommended that the special day include coots and moorhens.

Illinois, Minnesota, and five individuals recommended that State

licensing requirements be waived for this hunt. Texas and two

organizations recommended that as many National Wildlife Refuges as

possible be opened for hunting during the special day. One of the

organizations also recommended that as many State Wildlife Management

Areas as possible be opened for hunting and that the concept of ``Youth

Waterfowl Hunting Day'' be expanded to include dates during the regular

duck season on refuges.

The Missouri Department of Conservation (Missouri) recommended that

the precedent for this type of hunt be evaluated for additional

opportunity for other selected groups. Missouri and Minnesota

recommended that an active communication plan be established prior to

implementation of this hunt. Missouri also recommended that clear

implementation guidelines should be established. Michigan recommended

that the comment period for such a hunt be lengthened to allow for more

review by the Flyway Technical Committees and the public. Illinois

recommended that implementation of a youth hunt be delayed until the

1997-98 seasons, while South Dakota recommended that the name of the

special day be changed to ``Youth Duck Hunting Day.'' One individual

recommended that the Service encourage hunting guides to offer free

hunting to youths on the special day.

Service Response: The Service appreciates the suggestions and

widespread support for the youth hunting day concept. The Service

recognizes those organizations and individuals opposed to this concept

on the basis of general opposition to hunting as a desirable outdoor

recreational activity. The Service also recognizes the contribution of

both hunters and non-hunters to natural resource conservation. The

Service believes recreational sport hunting is a wise and compatible

use of a renewable natural resource and is directed by various

legislation to regulate the hunting of migratory waterfowl. The Service

views its role as one of permitting recreational harvest opportunities

consistent with long-term resource conservation for all Americans, and

believes a well-educated and properly trained hunting constituency is

in the best interest of this objective. Thus, the Service views a youth

hunting day as an educational opportunity to help ensure safe, high-

quality hunting for future generations of Americans. The Service

believes that this proposal is consistent with its responsibility to

provide general education and training in the wise recreational uses of

our nation's valuable wildlife resources. The Service believes that

this special training opportunity will be most effective if restricted

specifically to youth hunters.

The Service believes that age criteria must be consistent with

previous definitions of youth hunters that are established in other

Federal legislation. A youth is defined as a person less than 16 years

of age in the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1934. Therefore, to

maintain consistency and to avoid confusion, the Service believes that

this definition should also be employed for the youth waterfowl hunting

day.

The Service believes that the period 10 days prior to and after the

outside framework dates for the regular duck season provides sufficient

flexibility for States to provide this opportunity to their

constituents. The proposed youth hunting day can be selected

independently in each recognized duck hunting zone within a State. The

Service believes that restricting the opportunity to weekends or

holidays within the proposed framework is reasonable and should afford

maximum opportunity for participation by youth hunters during the

school year.

The Service also recognizes that numerous differences exist among

the States with respect to requirements for adult supervision of youth

hunters. It is not the intent of the Service to mandate conformity with

respect to these requirements. However, it is the intent of the Service

to promote only the highest standards of safety and quality

sportsmanship among youth hunters. Thus, the Service believes that

adult supervision is necessary, but that the specific qualifications

should be determined by the various State laws and regulations already

in place to govern such activities. Further, the Service feels that

this is an opportunity for the education of young hunters and thus

believes that on this special day the supervising adult, 18 or older,

should devote their full time and attention to ensuring a safe, high-

quality and successful hunt to the participating youth rather than

hunting themselves.

Regarding bag limits for the special day, the Service has reviewed

its proposal in light of the need to train youth hunters to be

responsible participants in waterfowl hunting. Therefore, since sex and

species restrictions are a necessary and important component of duck

hunting, the Service sees merit in employing the prevailing bag limits,

including species and sex restrictions, for this learning opportunity.

The Service recognizes the potential opportunity that inclusion of

geese in the youth waterfowl hunt might

[[Page 42502]]

provide. However, due to season closures and restrictions in place to

protect certain populations of Canada geese in various parts of the

country, the Service believes this complication is not appropriate at

this point. This is certainly a matter for consideration in future

regulatory cycles. The Service concurs that the proposal should include

coots, moorhens, and gallinules, as these species are normally included

in regular duck seasons.

The Service will encourage youth hunting day participation wherever

it can, including National Wildlife refuges with established hunting

programs. The Service will continue to evaluate this opportunity

annually, including an assessment of possible expansion and the need

for additional criteria. The Service believes that this opportunity

should be offered during the 1996-97 hunting season and that further

dialogue and refinements can be incorporated in future years.

The Service believes that the long-term conservation of North

America's migratory bird resources depends on the future attitudes and

actions of today's youth. The proposed special youth day will assist in

the formation and development of a conservation ethic in future

generations. The special day would provide an opportunity for young

hunters (15 or under), accompanied by an adult (18 or older), to

experience a safe, high-quality waterfowling experience. 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. Because the special 1-day hunt would be

limited to youth hunters, the Service believes that waterfowl

populations can support the additional harvest and that the hunt would

produce long-term benefits to the resource.

Therefore, the Service is proposing the following guidelines:

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 or holiday 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.

The Service recognizes the value of hunter education and safety

training for all those who participate in sport hunting and especially

for all participants in the ``Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day.'' These

courses should promote positive outdoor experiences while emphasizing

the need to act safely and responsibly during this special hunting day

as well as any other day during the season.

Public Comment Invited

The Service intends that adopted final rules be as responsive as

possible to all concerned interests and wants to obtain comments from

all interested areas of the public, as well as other government

agencies. Such comments, and any additional information received, may

lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.

However, special circumstances involved in establishing these

regulations limit the amount of time the Service can allow for public

comment. Specifically, two considerations compress the time in which

the rulemaking process must operate: (1) the need to establish final

rules at a point early enough in the summer to allow affected State

agencies to appropriately adjust their licensing and regulatory

mechanisms; and (2) the unavailability, before mid-June, of specific,

reliable data on this year's status of some waterfowl and migratory

shore and upland game bird populations. Therefore, and in light of the

fact that the Service sought, and received significant, public comment

in the development of this proposal, the Service believes allowing

comment periods past the dates specified is contrary to the public

interest.

Comment Procedure

The Department of the Interior's policy affords the public an

opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process, whenever

practical. Accordingly, interested persons may participate by

submitting written comments 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. The public may

inspect comments during normal business hours at the Service's office

in room 634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,

Arlington, Virginia. The Service will consider all comments received

and will try to acknowledge received comments, but may not provide an

individual response to each commenter.

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 will design 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 are presently under way to ensure

that actions resulting from these regulatory proposals 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 will be included in a

biological opinion and may cause modification of some regulatory

measures proposed in this document. The final frameworks will reflect

any such modifications. The Service's biological opinions resulting

from its consultation under Section 7 are public documents available

for public inspection in the Division of Endangered Species and the

Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

[[Page 42503]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act; Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the

Paperwork Reduction Act

In the Federal Register dated March 22, 1996, the Service reported

measures it took to comply with requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act and the Executive Order. One measure was to prepare a

Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) in 1995 documenting the

significant beneficial economic effect on a substantial number of small

entities. The Analysis estimated that migratory bird hunters would

spend between $258 and $586 million at small businesses in 1995. 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.

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.

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. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712,

and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.

Dated: August 8, 1996.

Donald J. Barry,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 96-20847 Filed 8-14-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-F