FR 2025-01319

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has proposed new regulations for migratory bird hunting for the 2025-26 season, seeking to set boundaries within which states can establish their specific hunting seasons. These regulations are a regular part of the FWS's process to manage hunting limits and ensure sustainable bird populations while offering recreational opportunities. The proposal includes various alternatives, particularly focusing on ducks, and considers modifications to the system of hunting zones and split seasons. The Service is also exploring a new administrative process aimed at increasing efficiency and reducing costs, though details on how this will be implemented are unclear.

General Summary

The document outlines the proposed regulations for hunting migratory game birds during the 2025-26 season. It includes the regulatory framework that guides states in setting hunting dates and bag limits. The proposed regulations highlight potential changes compared to the previous season and address new methods to authorize hunting seasons more efficiently. The document invites public comments, allowing stakeholders to provide input on the proposals.

Significant Issues and Concerns

The proposal presents several issues that warrant attention. Firstly, it does not delve into how these proposed changes will specifically affect different states, which could lead to disparities in how regulations are applied. Secondly, the potential new process for authorizing hunting seasons lacks sufficient explanation, leaving questions about implementation and efficiency improvements. Thirdly, the complexity of the zones and split seasons discussion could confuse readers about its impact on bird populations, risking misinterpretation. Additionally, the economic analysis is based on outdated data, possibly not reflecting current circumstances or hunting behaviors, which affects its reliability.

Another concern is the public commenting process. Participants may be discouraged from contributing if their personal data must be posted online without assurance of privacy. Furthermore, the document references other significant documents without summarizing them, making it hard for readers unfamiliar with those texts to grasp the context fully. Some sections utilize technical jargon without adequate simple explanations, such as those describing the Pintail Working Group's strategies, complicating understanding for general readers. While the document stresses hunter recruitment and retention, it lacks explicit strategies or evidence regarding the effectiveness of the proposed changes in achieving these goals.

Impact on the Public

These proposed regulations could have different impacts on the public. Broadly, the framework aims to balance conservation with recreational hunting opportunities, which could benefit the environment while allowing for hunting. However, the lack of clarity and outdated data might compromise the ability of states and hunters to effectively align their activities with the regulations' intentions.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For specific stakeholders, such as state wildlife agencies and hunters, the document presents both opportunities and challenges. State agencies could find the promise of a streamlined process appealing as it could lead to more effective planning and regulation development. However, the uncertainty around the execution of the new administrative process might pose challenges in decision-making. Hunters, particularly those concerned about waterfowl species management, might benefit from a clearer, more efficient regulatory structure if effectively implemented. Nonetheless, the risk of unequal application of regulations among states could lead to dissatisfaction.

Moreover, the economic implications derived from outdated data may not accurately predict the fiscal impact on related businesses, such as sporting goods stores, which could benefit economically from hunting activities. Those involved in the migratory bird hunting industry might face uncertainty if the data doesn't align with current trends.

Overall, while this proposal aims to manage hunting activities sustainably and efficiently, it must adequately address these concerns to ensure equitable and transparent regulation. Public engagement, with safeguards for privacy in commenting, alongside frequent communication on progress with the new process, could aid in managing stakeholder expectations and ensure successful implementation of the regulations.

In the proposed rule for the 2025-26 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations, financial considerations play a notable role in the discussion. These financial elements relate to potential savings for the Fish and Wildlife Service, the economic impact of hunting regulations, and predicted consumer surplus.

Cost Savings and Administrative Improvements

One significant aspect of the document is the Service's intention to eliminate the need for annual rulemaking, which is projected to save about $80,000 per year in printing costs. This change is also expected to reduce the staff workload by approximately 1,700 hours, and the managerial workload by about 200 hours. Additionally, this shift would enable federal limits to be established earlier in the year, thereby offering states and tribes more time for developing their hunting regulations. This financial efficiency is tied to identified issues regarding the complexity and potential inefficiency of the current rulemaking process, which lacks detailed explanation of improvement strategies. By streamlining this process, the Service aims to achieve cost reductions and increased administrative efficiency.

Economic Impact and Consumer Surplus

The document mentions an estimated consumer surplus associated with liberal regulations from the 2024-25 season, spanning from $606 million to $797 million in 2023 dollars across all flyways. This figure reflects the financial value that consumers place on the opportunity to hunt under such liberal regulations. The economic analysis, however, relies on outdated data from the 2011 and 2016 National Surveys, which is a concern as it may not accurately represent current economic conditions or hunter behaviors. This reliance on old data is associated with a broader issue of the document not adequately addressing how the proposed changes will impact states differently, potentially leading to inequalities.

Economic Benefits to Small Businesses

The document projects that migratory bird hunters will spend approximately $2.6 billion during the 2025-26 hunting season at small businesses, based on historical survey data and business patterns. This spending is expected to support sectors such as restaurants, grocery stores, lodging, transportation, and sporting goods stores, highlighting the significant economic impact of the hunting season on small enterprises. This positive economic outlook is important, as it underlines the document's claim that the proposed rule would have a beneficial economic impact, particularly on small businesses. However, the data used is from prior years, not taking into account any recent changes or trends in the economy.

Unfunded Mandates Consideration

Lastly, the proposed rule clarifies that it does not include any federal mandate that could result in expenditures of $100 million or more per year by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector, indicating that the financial implications of the regulation are not expected to burden small governments uniquely or substantially.

Overall, while the document outlines significant projected financial impacts and savings, it does so with reliance on outdated data, aligning with issues around economic analysis and clarity on how situations might evolve or differ among states. This could affect the rule's assessment and its implications on various stakeholders.