October 20, 2018

Anti-Hunting Mental Drool

Along with the time of year when there is much activity with hunting and trapping, we all regularly are subjected to the mental drool of those who don’t like any of the activities. Maybe if they just said I don’t like hunting and trapping and left it at that, some of us wouldn’t bother to single them out to expose their limited mental capacities while disparaging a worthwhile, long-standing, cultural heritage that has unlimited benefits to both man and wildlife – hunting.

A letter scribbler in the Bangor Daily News called hunting and trapping “incivil” – evidently meaning that any reporting in the news about hunting and trapping is offensive, rude, or impolite. The writer also called hunting and trapping an unworthy event and unsportsmanlike and said hunting was no longer “fair chase.”

Here’s a couple of things to ponder. Most of these terms – fair chase, sportsmanlike, etc. – have been crafted by men over the years perhaps as a means of pulling the wool over someone’s eyes about hunting and trapping. They are man-made terms much the same as when some mental midget declares hunting is an act to “prove one’s manhood.”

Fair chase is really nothing but abiding by the laws crafted by men for men to hunt and trap animals for consumptive use. All rules and regulations for hunting and trapping are grounded in species management and public safety – nothing more. I never thought of hunting as a “sport” therefore sportsmanship had nothing to do with the act. I see hunting as something I enjoy doing that occasionally (emphasis on occasionally) rewards me with a few good meals of healthy meat.

So give it a rest already. Take your “fair chase” and “sportsmanship” to the athletic field, where these days everyone gets a “trophy.” Hunting and trapping are a well developed scientific necessity to responsibly manage and maintain a healthy and sustainable game population.

The other issue is one in which I’ve never quite understood. Obvious this whiner takes offense – finds incivility – in news reports about hunting and trapping, and yet in order to find offense, the person must be reading the reports.

As this writer mentions, they find politicians offensive and rude, as do I. I find the solution sensible. Stop reading the articles and looking at the pictures. Any moron should understand that basic concept, but evidently, that is above the capacity of some who would rather whine, bitch, and complain about something they know nothing about.

 

Share

Feedback Beginning to Come in on Maine’s New Game Tagging System

It was announced a few days ago that Maine was entering the techno-zombie world of electronic game registration. This new system went into effect with the onset of the black bear hunting season. We are also in one of those “Expanded” seasons for deer with archery hunting.

I saw a first comment about the new system of registration from a person who shot and registered a deer taken in the Expanded season.

Essentially, he said the new program was easy to use and mostly begged that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) would begin to allow field registration so tagging could be done in the field with a smartphone.

I hope not.

Field tagging, while appearing convenient to some, presents a myriad of problems as I see it. I’ll present one.

Registering of game serves more than one purpose. It provides game managers a location where they can go and physically inspect the game, take samples, and collect all kinds of data. It is this data that should make Maine wildlife managers better at doing their jobs. Consider what might happen if this data was no longer collected.

Maine is one of those states that is not overrun with deer for example. Because of this, more importance is put on responsible and effective deer management. Data is vital to accomplishing this.

Let’s not be greedy. I’m still in a bit of shock over this announcement of MDIFW moving to a more modern form of game registration. We should be thankful for that. We should also be eager to be a part of game management by understanding the need to visit a registration center to tag our haul.

Share

Crossbow Not a Firearm, Not a “True” Bow

I got snickering a bit yesterday as I read V. Paul Reynolds article about crossbows and how certain rules regulating the use of crossbows for hunting have changed. In his article, he states: “The Maine Warden Service considers the crossbow not to be a firearm. The Maine Bowhunters Association (MBA) could never warm up to the medieval contraption, deeming it not a true bow.”

I’m not here to try to convince anybody about whether or not a crossbow should or shouldn’t be used as a weapon to kill certain game at certain times and in certain places. Instead, I’d rather talk about why some don’t like the idea because it ruffles their feathers in some odd fashion…I guess.

The Maine Warden Service, according to Reynolds, believes the crossbow “not to be a firearm.” This one is easy, provided this is the meaning of the comment that it isn’t a firearm and not that it isn’t a weapon that could be used for killing/hunting.

According to the dictionary, a firearm is a pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc. According to the BAFTE, a firearm is any weapon that uses an explosive to propel a projectile. So, technically a crossbow is not a firearm.

I’ve known for some time that the Maine Bowhunters Association has resisted allowing crossbows for hunting. I’ve read some members as saying it isn’t in the same category as “bow hunting” and that even the image of the crossbow somehow dirties the image of bow hunting in general. Oh, come on! Are we playing with the same notion that somehow the looks of a weapon determines its killing capacity?

It should always be remembered that opportunities to hunt are usually a good thing but that those opportunities are always going to be restricted by the desired and actual harvest of the game we are in pursuit of. Whether we hunt with a pistol, rifle, bow, crossbow, or a handful of rocks, biologists and hunting regulators are not going to allow us to kill too many animals.

Some have a problem with the so-called muzzleloader season for deer, believing the muzzleloader, a “primitive” weapon, is not a “true” gun of the modern era. It can and has been repeated that the modern muzzleloader is far from a primitive weapon.

Do muzzleloaders deserve their own special hunting season? Do crossbows deserve their own special hunting season? Do longbows deserve their own special hunting season? Does any weapon deserve its own special hunting season?

I would guess the crossbow is as much a true bow as a muzzleloader is a true rifle.

The longbow – is this the “true” bow? – has been around longer than the crossbow dating back to around 3,000 BC…maybe. Not long after this, the crossbow of a fashion was designed for warfare. Both weapons were designed for and used in warfare killing millions of people over the years.

A crossbow is not a firearm because it doesn’t fire. Why isn’t the crossbow a “true” bow? Probably for the same reason, that to some a muzzleloader is not a true rifle. In other words, they just plain don’t like the damned things.

Share

Pick A Side: Eco-Imperialism Or Wildlife Conservation

Hunters conserve and save wildlife when no one else will or can.

Want to save wildlife in wild places? Convince misguided would-be “saviors” that they need to throttle back, cease making death threats and doing other terrorist things.

In just the past few days there has been a spate of Internet and social media attacks on hunters for their choices to participate in legal hunting at various places around the globe.

The attacks come in two basic forms: Ridicule and death threats. Differences of opinion are healthy. Death threats are both sick and illegal.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Restraining Order Issued to Stop Grizzly Bear Hunts

A very biased report on the actions of a judge in Montana who issued a temporary restraining order to stop a grizzly bear hunt:

“A federal judge in Montana on Thursday issued a court order temporarily blocking the first trophy hunts of Yellowstone-area grizzly bears in more than 40 years, siding with native American groups and environmentalists seeking to restore the animals’ protected status.

The 14-day restraining order by U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen in Missoula, Montana, came two days before Wyoming and Idaho were scheduled to open licensed grizzly hunts allowing as many as 23 bears in the two states to be shot and killed for sport.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Record Number of Doe Permits Unanimously Approved by Maine Advisory Council

There were no objections from the Advisory Council to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) proposal to issue nearly 85,000 “Any-Deer” permits for this upcoming deer hunting season – an all-time record number.

Sensible people might have thought that with the state’s deer hunting still running at abysmal levels in some places of the state with harvest numbers continually far below what used to be normal, at least one member of the Advisory Council would have objected to this proposal.

It has been made clear that the majority of the increase comes in Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) where last year’s projected (or hoped-for) doe harvest was not reached. However, I find it most unscientific when the MDIFW repeatedly says, “The proposed increase in permits is a result of the goals and objectives set by the public in the state’s big-game management plan…”

Scape Goat?

Evidently, in this modern era in which Environmentalism rules game management plans are driven by social demands and not by science. MDIFW may become another laughing stock as they move toward a focus on “healthy” game species rather than paying much attention to numbers. History has proven that with overgrown numbers of any species, health becomes the number one issue. Wildlife over-protection is an agenda item of Environmentalists which is a “social” action in which MDIFW now makes their management decisions by. Along with that over-protection comes large swings in animal populations, especially when disease and predators, are “balancing” nature.

It will be interesting to see the results of this increase in “Any-Deer” permits. MDIFW claims that the quota for doe kills was not reached in all but six of the WMDs, but have failed to answer the question as to why – was it due to too few permits issued for those regions or lack of licensed hunters and/or enough time to hunt in order to reach those quotas? It does make a difference.

If there are simply not enough hunters and/or the season isn’t long enough to reach the desired harvest, certainly adding more permits, by 28%, will do little to reach those desired harvest levels.

And please don’t tell us that does aren’t being shot because there is an over-abundance of bucks.

Permit winners will be announced September 7.

 

Share

Maine’s 2018-2019 Hunting Laws Now Available Online

Being a responsible user of the Maine outdoors means staying informed of, and complying with, the current laws and rules.

MDIFW’s popular summary guides make it easy to find and follow the laws and rules that apply to you. And now, our NEW digital formats allow you to quickly check a law, confirm legal hunting hours, look up best practices and more – from anywhere, anytime. 

Just visit mefishwildlife.com/laws


No cell coverage in the woods? No problem.

Just visit mefishwildlife.com/laws and browse by activity. Before you head into the woods, follow these instructions to save an offline law book or quick reference guide to your mobile device.

iphone

  1. Download the Adobe Acrobat Reader or iBooks app.
  2. In Safari, go to: mefishwildlife.com/laws
  3. Click the link for the PDF you want to download.
  4. When it opens, tap on the share icon in the bottom center of the screen, then tap “Copy to Adobe Acrobat Reader” or “Copy to iBooks”. The file is now saved in your Adobe Acrobat Reader app and your iBooks app for offline viewing.
android

  1. In Chrome, go to: mefishwildlife.com/laws
  2. Select the link for the PDF you want to download.
  3. Choose to download the file to your Downloads folder OR
  4. Download the Adobe Acrobat Reader app and open the PDF.
computer

Go to mefishwildlife.com/laws to save a copy and/or print just the pages you need.


You will find a series of helpful quick reference guides as well, including a legal hunting time table and a chart of the hunting seasons and bag limits.


Why digital law books?

money

In 2016, we printed over 700,000 law books. Thats a lot of paper and a lot of resources diverted from Maine’s fish and wildlife.

With 77% of the U.S. population using smartphones in 2017, our agency’s mission clearly directed us to make a shift. And while we’re still priting some books (available at licence agent locations), we’re asking you to do your part and make use of the convenient and responsible digital options.

As a bonus, the digital options are searchable and always on hand, as long as you have your mobile device. If you always keep it on you (and charged) to take photos or use the GPS, this is a no-brainer.


Hunting season is approaching! Be prepared and be sure to review Maine’s 2018-2019 hunting laws today.

huntinglawscover

 

We hope you have a safe and enjoyable hunting season in Maine!

Share

Bye, Bye Partner

By Jim Beers:

See the article below regarding one more intended but denied future casualty of the war on hunting – hunting dog breeds

In the USA –

  • As more predators are introduced and protected from any management;
  • As more hunting license revenue & Excise Taxes & and state wildlife agency’s manpower are diverted to non-game and predator babysitting, propagandizing and cover-ups;
  • As wildlife management for people is supplanted by wildlife worship laws, and displacement of human activity and rights for animals is prioritized over humans;
  • As Universities, bureaucrats, politicians and the nouveau “scientists” of “overseeing” natural processes without intervention in our environment reap the rewards of catering to those false ideas:

“public hunting” will decline.

Game management is no longer understood or practiced by government bureaucracies founded to do so.  What game will be left on the “public lands” will continue to decline, government controls of public lands will continue to grow, private property will be either controlled by government ideologues through new laws and easements or will be used so intensively that game sightings will become like Ivory-billed woodpecker “sightings” (only fodder for bureaucracies to get more money and hire more people).  When combined with the ferocity of anti-gun political movements and the propagandizing of children in the public schools on these matters things do not bode well for the optimistic view that the numbers of hunters and the availability, indeed the very existence, of game birds (and big game for that matter) will continue to underpin dog breeds and all that creates thanks to “public hunting”  in the USA.

The English, as so often in past, have solved such dilemmas by leaving them to only the rich landowners and their patrician class.  This has been the case for centuries for both hunting and fishing in the British Isles.  In one very real sense, they are at least honest about it.  In the past 50 years in the US we have allowed liars, animal worship ideologues, politicians, bureaucrats, school teachers, socialists, vote-hungry conservatives and urban dreamers to conduct an offensive against hunting and animal management for human benefit that rivals the breadth and diversity of the offensive by the Allies against The Third Reich.  Yet we look the other way and avoid argument or any meaningful challenge to what is happening.

As we compromise and compromise public hunting and game on public land decline.  As the demand for game dogs in the US eventually declines, dog breeds and breeders will decline as the author notes in Britain.  Whether game farms and paid-for hunting can generate enough demand to make a difference is, in my opinion, not likely.  Either such breeds will disappear or be bred into fine-boned “beauties” like Irish setters have become or into some sort of “scientific” breed that doesn’t shed, doesn’t bark, licks the kids, is content in a condo, and is considered beautiful by vegans and others opposed to the old practice of “owning” any animal.

I want to thank Mr. Tom Keer for this informative article highlighting one more casualty of environmental/animal rights agendas, and to Sporting Classics Daily for making it available.

Jim Beers

23 July 2018

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Link to Article:

Share

RMEF Team Elk Returns

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—Heart-pumping elk hunts and tales of conservation success highlight the eighth season of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s award-winning television show, RMEF Team Elk, presented by Bass Pro Shops/Cabelas’s.

Team Elk captures the essence of up-close, adrenaline-filled encounters with elk as well as the beauty of the backcountry,” said Steve Decker, RMEF vice president of Marketing. “We are excited to unveil another season as we highlight how Hunting is Conservation.”

Season eight of RMEF Team Elk begins the week of July 2. It airs every Sunday at 9 p.m. Additional weekly airings include Mondays at 3 a.m., Tuesdays at 5:30 a.m. and Thursdays at 9:30 a.m. (all times MT) on Outdoor Channel.

Hosted by Brandon Bates, highlighted episodes feature an elk migration scientist and the conservation director of one of the nation’s largest outdoor retailers talking conservation and chasing elk in New Mexico, a father-son duo from Wisconsin hunting elk in Montana using archery equipment they build and two participants of the Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow program in Colorado on their first-ever elk hunt, among others.

Presented by Bass Pro Shops/Cabela’s, additional sponsors include Browning, Browning Ammunition, Buck Knives, Danner, Eberlestock, Mathews, PEAK BlueDEF, Sitka, Wildgame Innovations, Yeti and Zeiss, with special thanks to ALPS OutdoorZ, Bog-Pod and Yamaha.

“We are grateful for our conservation partners who value hunting and support RMEF’s conservation mission of ensuring the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage,” added Decker.

You can watch the first six seasons of RMEF Team Elk online anytime for free on the Elk Network.

Share

We’re All Gonna Die! Interior Proposes End to Obama Era Ban on Hunting on Alaska Preserves

*Editor’s Note* – If you were to read and/or listen to the Press about this proposal, you’d think the end of the world has come. The Associated Press released a piece of lying, sensational, emotional drivel that is probably far from to the truth of what is really taking place.

In brief, the proposal repeals most of the bans Obama placed on hunting and methods of hunting on Alaska public lands. This proposal puts much more control of how wildlife is managed in Alaska back in the hands of state wildlife managers and out of the hands of bureaucratic morons in Washington and their Environmentalist buddies.

Generally speaking, state wildlife managers have a better idea of how their wildlife should be managed and they need tools available to them to do that. It doesn’t necessarily mean all those hunting and trapping methods become free range. To state otherwise is irresponsible, emotional, and borders on criminal.

However, below is the actual proposal as can be found in the Federal Register. Unlike the Press, who NEVER provide links to the actual resource out of fear you might read it and discover their lies, I am posting it below for you to read and decide for yourself if we are all gonna die.

Action

Proposed rule.

Summary

The National Park Service proposes to amend its regulations for sport hunting and trapping in national preserves in Alaska. This proposed rule would remove a regulatory provision issued by the National Park Service in 2015 that prohibited certain sport hunting practices that are otherwise permitted by the State of Alaska. These proposed changes are consistent with Secretary of the Interior Orders 3347 and 3356.

Dates

Comments on the proposed rule must be received by 11:59 p.m. EST on July 23, 2018.

Addresses

You may submit comments, identified by Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024-AE38, by either of the following methods:

  • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
  • Mail or hand deliver to: National Park Service, Regional Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501.
  • Instructions: Comments will not be accepted by fax, email, or in any way other than those specified above. All submissions received must include the words “National Park Service” or “NPS” and must include the docket number or RIN (1024-AE38) for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,including any personal information provided.
  • Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

For Further Information Contact

Herbert C. Frost, Regional Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501. Phone (907) 644-3510. Email: AKR_Regulations@nps.gov.

Supplementary Information

Background

On October 23, 2015, the National Park Service (NPS) published a final rule (Final Rule) to amend its regulations for sport hunting and trapping in national preserves in Alaska (80 FR 64325). The Final Rule codified prohibitions on certain types of harvest practices that are otherwise permitted by the State of Alaska. The practices are: Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites; harvesting brown bears over bait; taking wolves and coyotes (including pups) during the denning season (between May 1 and August 9); taking swimming caribou; taking caribou from motorboats under power; taking black bears over bait; and using dogs to hunt black bears. This rule is inconsistent with State of Alaska’s hunting regulations found at 5 AAC Part 85.

Since the publication of the Final Rule, the Secretary of the Interior issued two Secretarial Orders regarding how the Department of the Interior should manage recreational hunting and trapping in the lands and waters it administers, and directing greater collaboration with state, tribe, and territorial partners in doing so.

On March 2, 2017, Secretary Zinke signed Secretarial Order 3347, Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation. Part of the stated purpose of Secretarial Order 3347 is to increase outdoor recreation and improve the management of game species and their habitat. Secretarial Order 3347 directs the Department of the Interior to identify specific actions to (1) expand access significantly for recreational hunting and fishing on public lands; and (2) improve recreational hunting and fishing cooperation, consultation, and communication with state wildlife managers.

On September 15, 2017, Secretary Zinke signed Secretarial Order 3356, Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with State, Tribes, and Territories. Part of the stated purpose of Secretarial Order 3356 is to increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans in greater collaboration with state partners, including opportunities to hunt. Secretarial Order 3356 directs the NPS to (1) identify whether hunting opportunities on Department lands could be expanded; (2) work cooperatively with state wildlife agencies to enhance their access to Department lands for wildlife management actions; (3) work cooperatively with state wildlife agencies to ensure that hunting regulations for Department lands and waters complement the regulations on the surrounding lands and waters; and (4) work in close coordination and cooperation with the appropriate state wildlife agency to begin the necessary process to modify regulations in order to advance shared wildlife conservation goals/objectives that align predator management programs, seasons, and methods of take permitted on all Department-managed lands and waters with corresponding programs, seasons, and methods established by state wildlife management agencies.

The purpose of this proposed rule is to align sport hunting regulations in national preserves in Alaska with State of Alaska regulations and to enhance consistency with harvest regulations on surrounding non-federal lands and waters in furtherance of Secretarial Orders 3347 and 3356. The proposed rule would apply the State of Alaska’s hunting regulations to national preserve lands, with limited exceptions found elsewhere in NPS regulations. See, e.g., 36 CFR 13.42(d).

The 2015 Final Rule prohibits the hunting practices otherwise permitted by the State of Alaska because NPS found those practices: (1) To have intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics, and associated natural ecological processes for the purpose of increasing harvest of ungulates by man; (2) to adversely impact public safety; or (3) to be inconsistent with federal law authorizing sport hunting in national preserves in Alaska. However, states have primary jurisdiction to manage wildlife throughout their state. In addition, NPS has broad discretion in managing wildlife on national preserves under applicable laws, policies, and regulations.

Taking into account the Secretarial Orders described above, NPS has re-considered its earlier conclusions and determined that these previously prohibited practices can be allowed consistent with the goal of aligning its rules with those of the State. Allowing these practices is consistent with NPS Management Policy 4.4.3 which provides that NPS does not allow activities to reduce the numbers of native species for the purpose of increasing the numbers of harvested species. The discussion in the 2015 rule of an action’s “intent or potential” to manipulate predator dynamics goes beyond the plain language of section 4.4.3 of Management Policies. Additionally, the State of Alaska disputes that the hunting methods and seasons (allowed by the state but prohibited by current NPS regulations) are intended to function as a predator control program. Rather, the State asserts the hunting regulations are intended to provide opportunity for harvests of wolves, coyotes, bears, and other species as requested by the public. The State also maintains that any effects to the natural abundances, diversities, distributions, densities, age-class distributions, populations, habitats, genetics, and behaviors of wildlife from implementing its regulations are likely negligible. As noted below, NPS will prepare an environmental assessment for this regulation to determine whether it will have any significant impacts on wildlife or other resources.

With respect to the practices that NPS previously determined to be inconsistent with federal law authorizing harvest for sport purposes in national preserves in Alaska, no applicable federal law or regulation defines “sport hunting.” With regard to NPS’s statement in the 2015 rule that baiting poses an increased public safety risk, the State of Alaska’s position is that baiting does not cause bears to become food-conditioned, and therefore a greater safety concern.

Proposed Rule

For the above stated reasons, the NPS proposes to remove paragraphs (f) and (g) of 36 CFR 13.42. Paragraph (f) states that State of Alaska management actions or laws or regulations that authorize taking of wildlife are not adopted in park areas if they are related to predator reduction efforts, which is defined as efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes, in order to increase harvest of ungulates by humans. Paragraph (g) sets forth a table of prohibited methods of taking wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves in Alaska. Most of these prohibited methods are also prohibited by the State of Alaska. Some of them, however, conflict with authorizations by the State of Alaska as explained above. The NPS believes that removing paragraphs (f) and (g) would implement the directive announced in Secretarial Orders 3347 and 3356 by increasing hunting opportunities in national preserves and promoting consistency between federal regulations and state wildlife harvest regulations. In addition, the proposed rule would remove the definitions of “Big game”, “Cub bear”, “Fur animal”, and “Furbearer” from section 13.1 because those terms are only used in paragraphs (f) and (g).

Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders and Department Policy

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation’s regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The NPS has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Executive Order 13771)

This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This certification is based on the cost-benefit and regulatory flexibility analyses found in the report entitled “Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Proposed Revisions to Sport Hunting and Trapping Regulations in National Preserves in Alaska” which can be viewed online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/akro.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

(c) Does 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.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This proposed rule only affects use of federally-administered lands and waters. It has no outside effects on other areas. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. This rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175 and Department Policy)

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department’s tribal consultation and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Native Corporation policies and have determined that the rule may have substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes. The NPS has invited Alaska native tribes and corporations to consult on the proposed rule and has consulted with those tribes and corporations that have requested consultation.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. The NPS may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

NPS will prepare an environmental assessment to determine whether this rule will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects in not required.

Clarity of This Rule

The NPS is required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)) and 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule the NPS publishes must:

(a) Be logically organized;

(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;

(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

If you feel that the NPS has not met these requirements, send the NPS comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help the NPS revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should identify the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Public Participation

It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written comments regarding this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

Public Availability of Comments

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the NPS in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, the NPS cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 13

Alaska, National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR part 13 as set forth below:

Part 13 National Park System Units in Alaska

1. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows:

Authority

16 U.S.C. 3124; 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102; Sec. 13.1204 also issued under Sec. 1035, Pub. L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 4240.

§ 13.1
[Amended]

2. In § 13.1 remove the definitions of “Big game”, “Cub bear”, “Fur animal”, and “Furbearer”.

§ 13.42
[Amended]

3. In § 13.42, remove and reserve paragraphs (f) and (g).

David L. Bernhardt,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-10735 Filed 5-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-EJ-P
Share