Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations controlling the density of hunters, limiting where firearms can be discharged e.g., not across roads, away from buildings, and using time and space zoning to limit conflicts between hunters and other visitors. It is worth noting that injuries and deaths related to hunting are extremely rare, both for hunters themselves and for the nonhunting public.
Public comment is important in ensuring we have considered all available information and concerns before making a final decision on a proposed opening or expansion. For all of the proposed openings or expansions of hunting in our May 4, 2021, proposed rule 86 FR 23794, we have determined that there are sufficient protections in place as part of the hunt program at that station to ensure public safety. For more information on the Services efforts to ensure public safety at a particular station, please see that stations hunt plan, compatibility determination, and associated NEPA analysis.
Regarding concerns about lack of funding or staffing, Service policy 603
FW 2.12.A.7 requires station managers to determine that adequate resources including personnel, which in turn includes law enforcement exist or can be provided by the Service or a partner to properly develop, operate, and maintain the use in a way that will not materially interfere with or detract from fulfillment of the refuge purposes and the Services mission. If resources are lacking for establishment or continuation of wildlife-dependent recreational uses, the refuge manager will make reasonable efforts to obtain additional resources or outside assistance from States, other public agencies, local communities, and/or private and nonprofit groups before determining that the use is not compatible. When Service law enforcement resources are lacking, we are often able to rely upon State fish and game law-enforcement capacity to assist in enforcement of hunting and fishing regulations. One commenter noted that our hunt plan document for the Potomac River NWR Complex specifically states that State law enforcement will take on the role of enforcing hunting and fishing regulations and asked that the hunt plan provide further detail. Specific information on how we responded to this comment letters request for more detail on particular hunting and fishing opportunities at Potomac River NWR
Complex can be found in that stations final hunt plan, compatibility determination, and finding of no significant impact documents.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:40 Aug 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

For all 89 stations opening or expanding hunting and/or sport fishing in this rule, we have determined that we have adequate resources, including law enforcement personnel, to develop, operate, and maintain the hunt programs.
We did not make any additional changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
Comment 18: We received additional comments supporting the requests made by the Arizona Game and Fish Department to allow falconry on refuges within the State and to align dog regulations on refuges to State regulations. They also echoed the concern from the State about inconsistencies on refuges within the State.
Our Response: As described in our response to Comment 3, above, we determine both whether falconry and the use of dogs for hunting is compatible on a refuge-by-refuge basis.
We also determine refuge regulations on a refuge-by-refuge basis, and while we strive to achieve consistency on refuges within a State, different regulations are sometimes required. This allows us to ensure that these uses are compatible with the purposes of the refuge.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a direct result of these comments.
Comment 19: We received two comments about reduced hunt quality from hunter overcrowding at particular refuges. One comment expressed concerns that the changes, especially removing the lottery limitation on waterfowl hunting, at Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee NWR would lead to hunter overcrowding. The other comment expressed concerns that additional gun hunting for deer at Sherburne NWR
would reduce the quality of the current deer bow hunting season on that refuge.
Our Response: For Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee NWR, the Service does not conclude removing the lottery draw will impact the quality of the waterfowl hunt or lead to overcrowding, as more areas will be open to hunting resulting in reduced overcrowding. As outlined in the NEPA and planning documents for the change, the Service will eliminate the lottery waterfowl hunting on the refuge to reduce the application process for the users and the associated administrative burden for the refuge.
The hunt program was designed to be supportive of hunters of diverse backgrounds. Further, the Service designed the hunt program on the refuge to better align, where appropriate and possible, with State regulations.
For Sherburne NWR, the Service recognizes that the new muzzleloader
PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48833

deer hunting as proposed may create problems for the existing bow hunting season. Accordingly, we are modifying the new muzzleloader hunting: instead of opening muzzleloader hunting in Areas A, B, and C we will only open it in Area A. The muzzleloader hunting will otherwise operate as proposed. This change ensures that Area B will only be open to bow hunters after the existing 9-day gun season ends. Area C will remain closed to all hunting following the 9-day gun season.
We changed the hunting at Sherburne NWR from the proposed rule as described, but did not make any changes to the regulatory text of the rule or any other changes as a direct result of these comments.
Comment 20: A couple of commenters stated that hunting and sport fishing activities could introduce invasive species to refuge lands or waters.
Our Response: We are aware of the ecological threats posed by invasive species and make it a part of all Service actions to limit the spread of invasive species. Many of the refuges opening or expanding hunting and sport fishing under this rule have both mitigation measures for invasive species in connection with the hunting and sport fishing activities and separate measures taken on refuge lands and waters to limit invasive species.
We also explicitly consider invasive species in our analyses of proposed hunting and sport fishing openings and expansions. As one of the two commenters noted, the cumulative impacts report directly addresses concerns about invasive species. We conclude there that invasive species do not present a significant risk, at individual refuges or cumulatively, because the participants in activities that present the risk of introducing invasive species generally come to the refuge from within the local area and are few in number.
Moreover, in some cases and as seen in this rule, we may use hunting as a management tool with the explicit goal of reducing populations of invasive species that threaten ecosystem stability. Therefore, facilitating hunting opportunities is an important aspect of the Services roles and responsibilities for management of invasive species.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
Comment 21: One commenter quoted the proposed rules description of the Services statutory authority to promulgate this rule and interpreted the quotation as indicating a compatibility assessment was not prepared for each station in the rule.

E:FRFM31AUR2.SGM

31AUR2