U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Overview of Proposed
Alaska National Wildlife Refuges
Regulatory Changes
What are the proposed changes (Part 1)?
Predator control is not allowed on refuges in Alaska unless
it is determined to be necessary to meet refuge purposes,
federal laws, or policy and is consistent with our
mandates to manage for natural and biological diversity,
biological integrity, and environmental health.
The need for predator control must be based on sound
science in response to a significant conservation
concern. Demands for more wildlife to harvest cannot be
the sole or primary basis for predator control on refuges
in Alaska.
What are the proposed changes (Part 2)?
• Prohibit the following methods and means for predator
harvest:
o Take of brown bears over bait
o Take of bears using traps or snares
o Take of wolves and coyotes during denning season
o Same day airborne take of bears
o Take of bear cubs or sows with cubs (exceptions apply)
What are the proposed changes (Part 3)?
Update Public Participation and Closure Procedures
o Include conservation of natural/biological diversity, biological
integrity, and environmental health to the list of closure criteria.
o Increase the possible duration of an emergency closure from 30
to 60 days.
o Temporary closure duration – only as long as is reasonably
necessary, with mandatory review every 3 years.
o Publish annual list of refuge closures for public review and input.
o Require consultation with the State and Tribes/Native
Corporations.
o Requirement for public hearing prior to implementation of
temporary and permanent closures will remain.
o Expand the methods used for public notice.
Why is the USFWS proposing
these changes?
• To ensure we are managing refuges in Alaska consistent with our
legal mandates to conserve fish, wildlife and their habitats in their
natural diversity and to maintain the biological diversity, integrity
and environmental health and to increase consistency with other
Federal laws, regulations, and policies.
• In response to recent regulations passed through the Board of
Game allowing particular practices for the harvest of wildlife on
Alaska Refuges that are in conflict with these mandates.
• More effectively engage the public by broadening notification and
outreach methods, ensuring consultation with Tribes and the
State, providing for increased transparency in our decision-making,
and allowing for additional opportunity for public input.
Who do these Proposed Regulations
apply to?
Proposed changes under the refuge hunting and trapping
regulations would apply only to State regulated general sport
hunting and trapping and intensive management activities on
Alaska National Wildlife Refuges.
These proposed regulations would NOT apply to Federally
qualified subsistence users hunting or trapping under Federal
Subsistence Regulations.
Where would these regulations apply?
Only on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska
(highlighted in purple)
Timeline for Proposed Rule Process
• Now — Continued outreach and scoping, internal review of
proposed rule and EA.
• January 2016 — Publish proposed rule and EA and start of
public comment period. Hearings scheduled around the state for
January and February of 2016. More information coming soon!
• March - April 2016 — Review public comments, update and
finalize proposed rule.
• May 2016 — Publish final rule
Questions?
Proposed changes are based on
existing mandates
US Fish & Wildlife Service Mission:
Working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife,
and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people.
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:
To administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of
the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans.
Proposed changes are based on
existing mandates
• ANILCA
“. . . to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in
their natural diversity”
“. . . to provide the opportunity for continued subsistence use
by rural residents (Title VIII and establishment purposes), as
long as this use is not in conflict with the conservation of fish
and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural
diversity or fulfillment of treaty obligations.”
“. . . to preserve wilderness resource values and related
recreational opportunities including. . . .hiking, canoeing,
fishing and sport hunting”
Proposed changes are based on
existing mandates
• Refuge System Administration Act (1966), as amended by
Improvement Act (1997)
•
Manage national wildlife refuges so as “to ensure that . . .
biological integrity, biological diversity, and environmental
health are maintained”
•
Fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and environmental
education in national wildlife refuges are generally compatible
uses, when managed in accordance with principles of sound fish
and wildlife management
•
A compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use on a refuge
should be facilitated, subject to such restrictions or regulations
as may be necessary, reasonable, and appropriate.
Definitions
Biological Diversity - the variety of life and its processes, including living
organisms, genetic differences, and communities and ecosystems.
Biological Integrity - Biotic compositions, structure, and functioning
(including natural processes) at genetic, organism, and community level
comparable with historic conditions.
Environmental Health - Composition, structure, and functioning
(including natural processes) of soil, water, air, and other abiotic features
comparable with historic conditions
Historic Conditions - Composition, structure, and functioning of
ecosystems resulting from natural processes that we believe, based on
sound professional judgment, were present prior to substantial human
related changes to the landscape.
ANILCA
“Natural Diversity” Intent
Congressional Representative Udall –
• “to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural
diversity. . ..
• In summary, it is the intent of the above language to direct the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to the best of its ability to conserve, protect
and manage all fish and wildlife populations within a particular
wildlife refuge system unit in the natural ‘mix’ as occurring now and
not to emphasize management activities favoring some species to
the detriment of others. . . ”
December 11, 1980, 126 Cong. Rec. H12351 1980
Why not use other processes?
• This is the process used to update regulations for refuges.
• Proposed regulations are relevant to and would apply on all
Alaska refuges
• BOG and RAC/FSB processes are specific to State and Federal
Subsistence regulations and would apply more broadly.