Odanah, Wis. - Twelve days after its proposal to increase duck limits and allow baiting on ceded territory was denied, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission says it was rejected with 'polemics and ?sky-will-fall' hyperbole.'
For most species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to allow about half of the bag limits GLIFWC originally proposed, and didn't go along with a desire to bait waterfowl.
In a letter to Paul Schmidt, USFWS assistant director for migratory birds and state programs, GLIFWC Executive Administrator James Zorn said the service 'has not provided sufficient biological, public health, or public safety rationale and supporting data as bases for rejecting the tribes' proposal.
'Instead, it has inappropriately assumed a paternalistic attitude about what is in the tribes' best interest and has examined the tribes' proposal through the lens of sport hunting and its fair chase precepts rather than pursuant to and consistent with the nature and extent of the tribes' court-affirmed treaty hunting rights.'
In the 1837 and 1842 treaty areas, GLIFWC proposed daily limits of 40 ducks, 20 geese, and 10 mergansers. The USFWS's proposal - placed in the Federal Register on Aug. 17, and to be finalized by Sept. 1 - would allow limits of 20 ducks, 10 geese, and 10 mergansers.
The federal proposal for bird limits includes the same regulations tribal members hunted under last year, except the merganser limit would be doubled from five to 10.
The USFWS said tribal hunters don't harvest enough ducks to warrant the doubling of limits, and that allowing baiting isn't the best way to increase participation. GLIFWC said that under its original proposal - baiting, and 40-duck and 20-goose limits - members likely would kill fewer than 5,000 ducks and 1,000 geese.
But it's the baiting provision of the tribes' proposal that has been the subject of most discussion. Both the Minnesota DNR and the USFWS say that allowing baiting on off-reservation lands would result in conflict between tribal and non-tribal members.
'The tribes also reject the Service's statement that, if approved, their proposal will cause confusion and resentment among the general public and other hunters,' the GLIFWC response said. 'Overall public acceptance of treaty rights has been secured and there is no reason to think that this proposal will undo either that acceptance or the goodwill that goes with it.
'However, even if ?resentment' were to occur among some portion of the public, it would not be a reason to curtail or restrict a legitimate treaty harvest,' the letter continued.
And contrary to what DNR and USFWS have said, GLIFWC doesn't believe that allowing baiting on ceded territories will result in state hunters unknowingly hunting over bait, which was banned in 1935.
'As the Service well knows, hunting over and with bait is a common practice for many species, as well as a court-approved practice within the scope of the tribes' ceded territory treaty rights ?' the response said.
'The truth of the matter is that, if properly regulated, baiting can be practiced without harming the particular natural resources targeted and without vitiating state-licensed harvest opportunities.'
The Minnesota DNR concurred with the USFWS on the baiting provision, and sent a letter in support of the federal proposal. The letter, written by Dave Schad, director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife, didn't mention the limits, but rather focused on the baiting aspect.
'We agree with the decision to not support the GLIFWC's proposal to remove baiting restrictions and concur with your analysis that allowance of baiting for tribal hunting on ceded lands would have further complicated the regulations, confused the public, and made those lands and other adjacent areas off-limits to waterfowl hunting by non-tribal members,' the letter said.
Despite the differences in the two proposals, Zorn said in his letter that the relationship between the tribes and the USFWS is a model of how the two should engage one another.
'The tribes offered their proposal in this context,' the letter said.
'Unfortunately, they are now compelled to reply to a proposed Service request that challenges their judgment and questions their ability to consider their own interests, that predicts social disharmony and unrest, and that panders to the worst traits of those who seek to deny the tribes' rights not based upon law or reason but upon misconception and emotion.'
Check Out Our Forum Tab!
Topic: Great Lakes Indian Fish&Game Commission respond to feds ruling (Read 2529 times)
