Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations appreciates the Departments comments regarding Bamsforth, Hutton Lake, and Mortenson Lake NWRs, and we will consider opening additional opportunities on those refuges in future rulemakings. The Service cannot comment on potential opportunities on National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management lands, and requests that the State work directly with those agencies for additional opportunities.
In response to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, we have made no changes to the rule, but will add much of the requested information, where appropriate, to supporting documents. Specific information on how we responded to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources suggestions for more detail on particular hunting and fishing opportunities at Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs can be found in those stations final hunt plan, compatibility determination, and finding of no significant impact documents. With respect to Great Dismal Swamp NWR, first, we cannot combine the bear hunting permit with the general hunting permit due to the strict harvest quota of 20 bears, and the associated need to be able to contact bear hunters specifically, and because refuge lands are situated in both Virginia and North Carolina, which have differing hunting regulations.
Second, we are already considering spring turkey hunting for a future rulemaking. Third, we have determined that full week hunting, regardless of whether or not Sundays are included, is not compatible with other uses of the refuge and the refuges conservation purposes and mission. Fourth, we will engage in outreach efforts to share the information about parking areas with all refuge visitors, including wildlifedependent recreational users of the refuge.
In response to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, we have made no changes to the rule.
Atlantic brant is considered a variety of dark goose under our regulations, so it does not need to be explicitly listed in station-specific regulations where dark goose hunting is authorized. Thus, the proposed authorization of light and dark goose hunting at Mackay Island NWR
already allows for the hunting of Atlantic brant. The suggested language about North Carolina State licenses and permits was not adopted because: 1 It would cause confusion as the regulatory provisions at 50 CFR 32.52e govern refuge lands in both North Carolina and Virginia where North Carolina licenses and permits are not necessary; and 2
this requirement is already covered by
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:40 Aug 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

the regulation requiring each person to secure and possess the required state license at 50 CFR 32.2 As a general matter, our regulations operate against the backdrop of state regulations as a default in this way, so if our regulations do not explicitly remove any given state requirement for a given hunt then hunters must still abide by those requirements in order to hunt on Refuge System lands. Nevertheless, the refuge will ensure this requirement is also included in the refuge hunt brochure to address the concerns of the Commission.
In response to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlifes request to remove merganser from the species list in the regulatory language under William L.
Finley NWR, we agree that this change will allow us to be more aligned with the States regulations and have made that change in this final rule.
In response to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, we consider falconry a special hunt due to concerns regarding non-target take and so have made no changes to the rule concerning falconry. Service policy, as outlined in our Service manual at 605 FW 2.7.M.
Special Hunts, stipulates, We will address special types of hunts, such as falconry, in the hunt section of the visitor service plan VSP. In other words, each refuge manager, when developing their step-down VSP which would include a hunt plan, if appropriate from their CCP, must first determine if hunting is compatible.
Assuming it is found to be compatible, the refuge manager would next determine the conduct of the hunt, which might include the use of falconry.
A refuge manager has discretion to restrict hunting and types of hunting, including falconry, if, for example, endangered or threatened species are present, the cumulative impacts of a type of hunt have not been analyzed or are not available, or if a type of special hunt is not compatible with the refuge purpose. Thus, this issue is decided individually on a refuge-by-refuge basis.
The Service remains committed to opening hunting methods, including falconry and especially those methods allowed by State regulations, whenever it is possible to do so at a given refuge in a manner consistent with all purposes and objectives of the refuge, in the professional judgment of the refuge manager. Falconry has not been found compatible on Bill Williams River and Havasu NWRs.
In response to the comment from the Arizona Game and Fish Department regarding aligning dog regulations on refuges to State regulations, we have made no changes to the rule. Even
PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48825

though State regulations may allow dogs during hunting activities, our general refuge regulations prohibit all domesticated animals at 50 CFR
26.21b unless authorized by refugespecific regulations. While refuges adopt State hunting and fishing regulations to the extent practicable, they must also comply with the general refuge regulations. Therefore, in order to allow dogs during hunting activities, each refuge must authorize the use of dogs during hunting activities in their refuge-specific entries at 50 CFR part 32.
As explained above, all uses on refuges must be found compatible and must not conflict with refuge objectives. Some refuges have found that the use of dogs during hunting activities must be limited or not authorized in order to avoid conflict with refuge objectives.
In response to the comment from the Arizona Game and Fish Department regarding methods of take for javelina, we have changed the CFR to remove shotgun shooting shot as a legal method of take for javelina at Bill Williams River NWR in order to align with state regulations.
In response to the Arizona Game and Fish Departments concern regarding inconsistencies between refuges within the State, we have made no changes to the rule. Refuges within the same State often have different purposes, different endangered or threatened species, or different habitats, and therefore all hunting and fishing activities and regulations must be considered on a refuge-by-refuge basis as well. Where we do not align with State regulations, we make every attempt to align refuges within a State or geographic region to each other, but this is not always possible to ensure compatibility.
In response to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, we made no changes to the rule. A key difference from other states is that refuges in Alaska are open to all hunting and fishing uses until closed under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act ANILCA; 16 U.S.C.
31113126. Where we have closed opportunities or limited the use in comparison to State regulations, we promulgate those regulations under 50
CFR part 36. We work closely with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game when making these determinations and in assessing the continued need for regulations.
Comment 4: We received comments from five Tribal governments on the rule. The Shawnee Tribe in Oklahoma and Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana both stated they did not have concerns about the proposed rule. The Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska expressed
E:FRFM31AUR2.SGM

31AUR2