Feds rule on native request for baiting and larger limits

[Bufflehead]

Feds deny GLIFWC bag, baiting pitch

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:42 AM EDT




By Joe Albert Staff Writer

Ft. Snelling - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has denied a proposal by the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission to allow waterfowl baiting and a 40-duck limit on off-reservation lands in two treaty areas in Minnesota and Wisconsin this fall.

The USFWS published its proposed rules in the Federal Register last week, and will accept comments on them until Aug. 28.

For the 1837 and 1842 treaty areas, the proposal is to allow a 20-duck limit. The proposal also wouldn't allow tribal members to use bait, a provision sought as a way to increase hunter participation.




GLIFWC hasn't formulated an official response, but is disappointed with the decision, said Peter David, wildlife biologist with GLIFWC.

'I think it's clear the Service views this as just another sport hunt,' he said. 'That perception is simply just not correct. It is a treaty-reserved subsistence hunt.'

The USFWS understands the cultural significance, and that the waterfowl aren't used only by the person who shoots them, but GLIFWC hasn't demonstrated the need for higher duck limits, said Steve Wilds, the regional migratory bird chief for USFWS at Ft. Snelling.

In the last five years of harvest data, just one hunter has reported harvesting more than 20 ducks in one day, he said.

'Even though the bag limits would be very high - they are high at 20 - the reality is that tribal members take very few ducks compared to the state of Wisconsin or the state of Minnesota,' Wilds said. 'Their harvest is in the hundreds or low thousands each year. We shoot more than that in the first five minutes of the duck season.'

GLIFWC also asked for a 20-goose limit (the USFWS proposal is a 10-goose limit). Estimates from the commission indicated under its proposal, the annual harvest would be below 5,000 ducks and 1,000 geese.

In recent GLIFWC harvest surveys, tribal off-reservation harvest averaged fewer than 1,000 ducks and 120 geese each year, according to the Federal Register.

Rather than the harvest, the main concern was in the baiting proposal, particularly as it would apply to ceded territories, Wilds said. Baiting has been federally prohibited for about 70 years.

'We don't allow baiting anywhere for waterfowl, and this would be a dramatic change,' he said. 'That would set up a very bad situation for non-tribal hunters who might or might not know the bait was there and could get in trouble. Or they would be excluded from hunting on some of those areas.'

The baiting proposal was most alarming to the DNR, too, because of its potential effect on non-tribal hunters, said Steve Cordts, DNR waterfowl specialist.

The DNR supports the USFWS proposal, but hasn't decided yet whether to comment officially on it, said Ed Boggess, DNR Fish and Wildlife Policy Section chief.

GLIFWC will comment on the proposal, but expects the proposed federal regulations to be in place this fall, David said.

Federal courts say tribes can regulate themselves, and the only time it is appropriate for the USFWS or others to supercede that right is in cases in which human health or conservation are concerned, David said. The USFWS proposal doesn't mention either of those as a reason, he said.

'The federal courts have been very clear that the tribes' right to hunt, to fish, and to gather was a right that they have, that they retain in the treaties,' he said.

The USFWS will assess the comments and intends to have a regulation published by Sept. 1.

'It would need to be a fairly compelling argument for us to change anything at this point in time,' Wilds said.