FR 2021-03407

The Federal Subsistence Board has introduced a proposed rule affecting the hunting and trapping regulations in Alaska for the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 regulatory years. This rule aims to manage wildlife resources by revising subsistence use regulations, changing hunting seasons and harvest limits, and ensuring that Alaska's rural residents have a priority in hunting and fishing on federal lands. As part of the rulemaking process, there will be opportunities for public meetings to gather feedback and suggestions, with various federal agencies working collaboratively with rural communities to oversee these resources.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One of the central challenges of this document is its complexity and technical language. The intricate legal and administrative terminology can be difficult for the average reader to understand, possibly limiting full comprehension of the changes being proposed. For individuals unfamiliar with regulatory or legal procedures, this complexity could hinder their ability to engage effectively, provide input, or understand how the modifications will specifically impact them.

The process for submitting proposals and public comments is described in detail. However, it is intricate and might appear overwhelming or confusing to individuals not accustomed to bureaucratic processes. This might unintentionally limit effective public participation, as stakeholders may not navigate the process efficiently.

Moreover, although the document outlines a consultative relationship with Alaska Native Tribes and corporations, it does not explicitly detail how other local communities and stakeholders will be informed or engaged. This oversight could result in less comprehensive community involvement, which is crucial for drafting effective regulations that consider diverse perspectives and needs.

Impact on the Public

At a broader level, these proposed regulations could significantly affect Alaskan residents, especially those residing in rural areas who depend on subsistence hunting and fishing. The rule intends to prioritize their access to wildlife resources on federal lands, preserving their way of life and ensuring they can meet their needs sustainably. This prioritization reflects a commitment to honoring traditional uses and maintaining local customs.

From an economic perspective, the document estimates the value of subsistence-harvested meat at $6 million annually when priced at $3.00 per pound. However, it doesn't provide an in-depth economic impact analysis beyond this valuation, potentially overlooking broader implications on local economies and how these changes might resonate within different community sectors.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For Alaska Native Tribes and corporations, the emphasis on providing opportunities for consultation and participation is positive. It allows these groups to voice their concerns and contribute insights that could influence subsistence management effectively. However, it is crucial that these opportunities extend meaningfully to other stakeholders, ensuring that decisions are informed comprehensively by a range of experiences and cultural contexts.

One potential negative impact could arise if the consultation and engagement processes are not managed transparently or inclusively, which may lead to overlooked voices. Additionally, the unclear criteria for what constitutes proposals "beyond the scope of authorities" could discourage individuals from submitting possibly valuable suggestions out of uncertainty.

In conclusion, while the proposed rule seems to genuinely aim to protect and manage wildlife resources effectively for Alaskan residents, it is essential for the regulatory process to be more accessible and transparent to ensure comprehensive participation and understanding. Addressing these concerns could enhance the rule's success and foster a collaborative environment where all communities feel empowered to contribute.

In the document titled "Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska-2022-23 and 2023-24 Subsistence Taking of Wildlife Regulations," several financial aspects are addressed, primarily revolving around the economic implications of subsistence harvesting and the regulatory impact on local economies.

The first financial reference emphasizes that the resources subject to subsistence take are currently being utilized and thus do not yield an additional economic benefit: "In general, the resources to be harvested under this proposed rule are already being harvested and consumed by the local harvester and do not result in an additional dollar benefit to the economy." This statement underscores that the proposed regulations are not intended to boost the local economy but to manage sustainable practices for subsistence users.

A significant financial figure is mentioned with regard to the subsistence harvest's overall value: "We estimate that two million pounds of meat are harvested by subsistence users annually and, if given an estimated dollar value of $3.00 per pound, this amount would equate to about $6 million in food value statewide." This valuation is crucial for understanding the importance of subsistence activities to Alaskan rural communities. It ties directly to concerns about how regulations might impact those who rely substantially on these activities for their food supply and economic well-being.

An analysis of potential broader economic effects ensures that the proposed rule's impact remains minimal: "It will not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, and will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises." This statement highlights the regulatory considerations taken to prevent any significant negative economic impact, though it may lack depth in exploring potential subtle effects on small communities.

Furthermore, compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is addressed: "The Secretaries have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502et seq., that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or private entities." This assurance is intended to reaffirm that the implementation would not economically burden state or local governments unduly, a crucial aspect when considering the efficiency and fairness of new regulations.

These financial references tie into several of the issues noted. The overall economic impact section lacks a comprehensive, detailed economic analysis, perhaps leading to confusion among stakeholders about the broader implications of these figures. The document's complex language and process description might obscure these important financial details from the general public, impairing effective public participation in the regulatory process. Furthermore, while the valuation of the subsistence harvest is informative, it may benefit from additional context or case studies illustrating the specific impact on varied community members and wildlife, thereby addressing concerns about how these regulations concretely alter local economic landscapes.