Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations in the rule do have these IBA
designations, these designations do not place any additional legal restrictions related to migratory birds on management of these refuges. As discussed previously, each station goes through several different processes, including compatibility determinations, NEPA compliance, and ESA
compliance, to ensure that the hunting and fishing opportunities proposed would have no significant impacts on populations of migratory birds in compliance with the Services mandates under the MBTA, Administration Act, or other applicable laws and policies.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
Comment 13: A number of commenters mentioned climate change, as a general environmental issue, as something we should consider in developing this rule. A few of these commenters specifically argued that we did not fully consider the impacts this rule could have in conjunction with the separate impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, and other refuge resources. One comment invoked Executive Order 14008, which calls on government agencies to combat the climate crisis through conservation and other measures.
Our Response: The Service recognizes climate change as a threat to human and ecological health and operates in compliance with Executive Order E.O.
14008. The conservation goals and operations of the Refuge System are well-aligned with E.O. 14008, and this rule in particular is consistent with the Executive order.
We consider climate change factors in this rule, as with all actions on Service lands. Where appropriate, the effects of climate change on individual species and refuge natural resources are considered throughout the individual NEPA documents, individual ESA
section 7 documents, and cumulative impacts report. If such analysis determined that a given hunting or sport fishing activity, in conjunction with the effects of climate change, would result in adverse impacts to protected species or biological integrity, then the refuge manager would not authorize the activity.
In addition to considering the impacts of climate change on the management of wildlife, we respond to a changing climate through the annual process of setting hunting and fishing seasons.
Hunting seasons are based on biological monitoring and coordination with our State partners. In some circumstances, seasons may be adjusted based on predicted harvest rates, population levels, seasonal factors, and other
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:40 Aug 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

assessments. While this process is not necessarily climate-based, over time, as the variables mentioned above change, we respond by altering regulations accordingly. These regulatory changes are only incremental changes that build on previous changes. Any major changes in station or environmental conditions, such as an unsustainable decrease in a species population or sizeable increases in refuge or hatchery acreage or public uses, would trigger additional planning, NEPA review, compatibility determinations, and ESA
section 7 evaluation processes. The Service may reevaluate compatibility at any time if conditions warrant. These required planning and management processes ensure that adverse impacts will not accumulate over time.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
Comment 14: We also received various comments expressing the sentiment that trophy hunting, baiting, and hounding of predators are unsportsmanlike activities and inappropriate uses on Service lands.
Some comments also expressed a desire for the Service to enact a ban on hunting contests.
Our Response: The Service does not attempt to define or authorize trophy hunting in any of our laws, regulations, or policies concerning hunting. We follow State hunting and fishing regulations except for where we determine it is necessary to be more restrictive on individual stations, including State regulations concerning responsible hunting, or prohibitions on wanton waste defined as to intentionally waste something negligently or inappropriately.
We apply this same stance on alleged hunting contests. The Service follows State bag limits for species open to hunting, except where we may restrict bag limits in order to meet compatibility requirements for the activity. In States where excessive take of particular species is encouraged for sport only, the Service would restrict bag limits. We only allow hunting on refuges and hatcheries when we have determined that the opportunity is sustainable and compatible. For example, contests targeting non-game species where there are no bag limits under State regulations, including species classified as predators under State laws, are permitted in Oregon and Idaho.
However, the Service would not issue permits for coyote hunting contests at refuges in these States for several reasons, including unacceptable disturbance impacts to other game and nongame species, conflicts with other
PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48831

user groups, and conflicts with the Services BIDEH policy.
Under 50 CFR 26.21b, the use of dogs for hounding is prohibited on refuges unless authorized by stationspecific regulations, and many refuges only authorize the use of dogs for retrieval of migratory birds, upland game birds, and small game. Most refuges that allow dogs require that the dogs are under the immediate control of the hunter at all times or leashed, unless actively retrieving an animal. Most of the commenters who expressed opposition to the use of dogs referenced Silvio O. Conte NWR specifically. The use of dogs will still be allowed at Silvio O. Conte NWR for hunting of waterfowl and game species in accordance with state regulations. However, because of the concerns of commenters we will require hunters who wish to use more than two dogs at a time for hunting of any species anywhere on the refuge to obtain a special use permit and on the Putney Mountain Unit specifically we are only allowing the use of dogs for migratory bird and grouse hunting.
In States where baiting is allowed, most refuges have elected to be more restrictive and not support this method of hunting. Furthermore, most of the commenters who expressed opposition to baiting referenced Silvio O. Conte NWR specifically, but that refuge does not allow baiting.
We made changes to the rule for the use of dogs at Silvio O. Conte NWR as described above, but made no other changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
Comment 15: We received a few comments expressing concern about opening and expanding opportunities for hunting of predator species. Some commenters alleged that we did not give enough consideration to the impacts of those proposed hunts, and that the hunts conflicted with the Services mandates under the Administration Act to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge. One of these commenters also brought our attention to the omission of coyote from species lists for three refuges in our cumulative impacts report.
Our Response: Refuge managers consider predator management decisions on a case-by-case basis. As with all species, a refuge manager makes a decision about managing predator populations, which are included in the category of resident wildlife, including allowing predatory species to be hunted, only after careful examination to ensure the action would comply with relevant laws, policies, and directives. The Administration Act, as amended, directs
E:FRFM31AUR2.SGM

31AUR2