Migratory Bird Hunting; Final 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)

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