Overview
Title
Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest in Alaska; Harvest Regulations for Migratory Birds in Alaska During the 2021 Season
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The people in charge of taking care of wild birds in Alaska want to change the rules about how people can catch birds. They want to make sure there are enough birds to go around while still letting people who live there catch them for food.
Summary AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing changes to rules about hunting migratory birds in Alaska, focusing on subsistence harvest regulations. This includes introducing permits for hunters from excluded areas, closing the harvesting of emperor goose eggs statewide due to population concerns, and providing clarity on certain boundaries and regulations to ensure compliance and proper management. The proposals aim to involve Native representatives in managing these rules and ensure the sustainability of bird populations while balancing subsistence needs.
Abstract
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) is proposing changes to the migratory bird subsistence harvest regulations in Alaska. These regulations allow for the continuation of customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds in Alaska and prescribe regional information on when and where the harvesting of birds may occur. These regulations were developed under a co-management process involving the Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Alaska Native representatives. The proposed changes would update the regulations to incorporate revisions requested by these partners.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) aims to implement changes in the migratory bird subsistence harvest regulations in Alaska. This document seeks to update procedures to reflect regional requests and maintain sustainable bird populations, while ensuring that the indigenous inhabitants of Alaska can continue their traditional bird harvesting practices.
General Summary
The document outlines proposed changes to regulations governing the subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska. A notable proposal introduces a permit system, allowing hunters from excluded areas to partake in harvesting within the Upper Copper River region. It also suggests closing the harvesting of emperor goose eggs across Alaska due to fluctuations in population numbers. Additionally, there is an emphasis on clarifying the language and boundaries of hunting areas to improve regulatory compliance and understanding, involving the persistent engagement of Alaska Native representatives to manage these processes collaboratively.
Significant Issues
One major issue is the complex language and structure of the document, which might pose an understanding challenge for those not versed in legal or regulatory terminology. The references to various forms and sections of the Code of Federal Regulations without straightforward explanations may increase the document's inaccessibility. There could be perceived ambiguity in the permit system introduced for hunters in specific regions, potentially raising fairness and consistency concerns.
Further, some geographic terms such as "Central Interior Excluded Area" and "Kodiak Island Roaded Area" may still be misunderstood despite the clarified language and incomplete contextual mapping. The method and transparency surrounding tribal consultations also appear obscured, which might lead to accountability questions.
Public Impact
On a broad level, these regulations can ensure continued traditions of hunting amongst Alaska’s indigenous communities, helping preserve cultural practices and traditional ways of life. By implementing sustainable practices informed by population data, the rules aim to balance human needs with conservation priorities.
Stakeholder Impact
Positive impacts for indigenous communities include enhanced and legally protected subsistence opportunities, ensuring cultural practices continue safely and sustainably. However, the proposal's impact might vary across different regions due to discrepancies in permit distribution and hunting allowances.
For conservationists and environmental groups, the closure of certain bird egg harvests might align with avian population sustainability goals, ensuring that bird numbers remain stable or recover. However, the discrepancies in potential environmental impacts due to subjective geographic and population data assessments might be contentious.
Native organizations might experience administrative strain due to newly introduced processes, raising worry over fairness if implemented inconsistently. Meanwhile, small businesses engaged in hunting equipment and related supplies could see minimal economic shifts due to maintained traditional hunting activities. However, emphasis on nontoxic hunting supplies might encourage necessary business adjustments towards sustainability standards.
Overall, these proposed regulations reflect both progress and challenges in attempting to account for diverse needs and complexities within the field of migratory bird management and subsistence harvesting in Alaska.
Financial Assessment
In reviewing the Federal Register document regarding the migratory bird subsistence harvest in Alaska, several financial aspects and references are noteworthy. The document outlines the proposed financial implications and the expected cost burden related to the implementation of new regulations.
Financial Overview
This proposed rule is not expected to have a major economic impact. Specifically, it "would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more." Furthermore, it is estimated that the rule "will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local, State, or Tribal governments or private entities." These statements emphasize that the financial impact of the proposed rule is relatively minimal on a national scale.
Coordination and Travel Expenses
The document estimates that "total coordination and travel expenses for all Alaska Native organizations are less than $300,000 per year." This cost arises from the involvement of Alaska Native organizations in the co-management and regulatory processes. Given the emphasis on local and regional management, these expenses reflect the necessary coordination to facilitate efficient and effective governance.
Moreover, expenses for the State's involvement in these activities "may exceed $100,000 per year, but should not exceed $150,000 per year." This allocation relates to the technical and logistical support provided by the State of Alaska to help implement the regulation changes.
Relationship to Identified Issues
The financial references in the document connect to several identified issues. One specific issue is the potential for perceived bias or favoritism in the method of inviting hunters through permits or letters. Ensuring that these processes are uniformly administered across regions might involve travel and coordination expenses. Consequently, having a designated budget for these purposes ensures transparency and consistency.
Further, concerns were raised about the potential wasteful spending related to data collection and coordination, suggesting there could be a more efficient use of digital solutions. With the noted expenses primarily allocated for travel and coordination, exploring digital alternatives might not only reduce costs but also address concerns over administrative inefficiencies.
Overall, the financial allocations in the document appear conscientiously outlined, aimed at ensuring the implementation of harvest regulations without exerting undue economic influence on involved parties. Nevertheless, by addressing concerns over coordination and operational efficiencies, the financial impact of these regulations could be further optimized.
Issues
• The complex language and structure of the document may make it difficult for individuals not familiar with regulatory language to understand the proposed changes.
• The document references multiple forms and sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) without providing clear and accessible summaries or explanations of these forms and sections for those unfamiliar with them.
• There may be perceived bias or favoritism in the method of inviting hunters through permits or letters which could be administratively burdensome or inconsistent across different regions.
• There is potential ambiguity in the terms used to describe geographic boundaries and zones, such as the 'Central Interior Excluded Area' and the 'Kodiak Island Roaded Area,' which while clarified, still may leave room for misinterpretation without sufficient context or mapping.
• The document mentions consultations with Tribal entities and organizations, but does not clearly outline the process or criteria for decision making, which may lead to concerns regarding transparency or accountability.
• There may be concerns over potential wasteful spending for nonhour burden costs related to data collection, traveling, and coordination that could be minimized with digital or more efficient alternatives.
• The use of numerous acronyms and agency names could be confusing without a glossary or appendix providing explanations for all terms used.
• The inclusion and exclusion of species for hunting and egg gathering might benefit from clearer justification and data to support these choices within the document text itself, rather than referencing external documents.