[Senate Treaty Document 105-26]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Treaty Doc.
SENATE
1st Session 105-26
_______________________________________________________________________
PROTOCOL WITH MEXICO AMENDING CONVENTION FOR PROTECTION OF MIGRATORY
BIRDS AND GAME MAMMALS
__________
MESSAGE
from
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
transmitting
THE PROTOCOL BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES AMENDING THE CONVENTION FOR
THE PROTECTION OF MIGRATORY BIRDS AND GAME MAMMALS, SIGNED AT MEXICO
CITY ON MAY 5, 1997
September 15, 1997.--Protocol was read the first time and, together
with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations and ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
The White House, September 15, 1997.
To the Senate of the United States:
With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the
Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Protocol
Between the Government of the United States of America and the
Government of the United Mexican States Amending the Convention
for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals, signed
at Mexico City on May 5, 1997 (``the Mexico Protocol''). I
transmit also, for the information of the Senate, the report of
the Department of State with respect to the Mexico Protocol.
In concert with a similar Protocol between the Governments
of the United States and Canada, the Mexico Protocol represents
a considerable achievement for the United States in conserving
migratory birds and balancing the interests of
conservationists, sports hunters, and indigenous people. The
Protocol should further enhance the management of and
protection of this important resource for the benefit of all
users.
The Mexico Protocol is particularly important because it
will permit the full implementation of the Protocol Amending
the 1916 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds in
Canada and the United States (``the Canada Protocol'') that is
pending before the Senate at this time. The Canada Protocol is
an important agreement that addresses the management of a
spring/summer subsistence hunt of waterfowl in communities in
Alaska and northern Canada. The Mexico Protocol conforms the
Canadian and Mexican migratory bird conventions in a manner
that will permit a legal and regulated spring/summer
subsistence hunt in Canada and the United States.
I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable
consideration to the Protocol and give its advice and consent
to ratification.
William J. Clinton.
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL
----------
Washington, August 27, 1997.
The President,
The White House.
The President: I have the honor to submit to you, with the
view to its transmission to the Senate for advice and consent
to ratification, the Protocol between the Government of the
United States of America and the Government of the United
Mexican States Amending the Convention for the Protection of
Migratory Birds and Game Mammals, signed at Mexico City, May 5,
1997 (``the Mexico Protocol'').
The Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and
Game Mammals, signed at Mexico City on February 7, 1936, (``the
1936 Convention''), mandates ``a close season for wild ducks
from the tenth of March to the first of September.''
The goals of the Mexico Protocol are to bring the 1936
Convention into conformity with practice, as indigenous people
in Alaska have continued their traditional hunt of these birds
in the spring and summer for subsistence and other related
purposesdespite the prohibition in the 1936 Convention, and to
permit full application of the Protocol between the Government of the
United States of America and the Government of Canada Amending the 1916
Convention Between the United Kingdom and the United States of America
for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Canada and the United States,
signed at Washington on December 14, 1995 (``the Canada Protocol'').
Prompt ratification is of the essence to secure conservation efforts of
the United States and Mexico.
A detailed analysis of the Mexico Protocol follows.
the mexico protocol
Article I of the Mexico Protocol amends Article II(D) of
the 1936 Convention to permit, in the State of Alaska, the
harvest of wild ducks and their eggs by indigenous inhabitants
during the period from the tenth of March to the first of
September for their own nutritional and other essential needs.
This is necessary to provide domestic legal authority for this
spring/summer hunt in Alaska, where the inhabitants are
generally unable to participate in the customary autumn hunt,
by which time in the year many of the game birds have departed
from the state. In Alaska, the spring harvest of waterfowl and
their eggs is a long-practiced custom of the indigenous
population that providesimportant nutritional and cultural
benefits to the indigenous populace.
Article II of the Mexico Protocol establishes that the
Protocol will enter into force on the date the United States
and Mexico exchange instruments of ratification and that the
Protocol, which will be considered an integral part of the 1936
Convention, will continue in force for the duration of the
Convention.
Domestic Implementation
An existing statute (16 U.S.C. 712) authorizes the
Department of the Interior to promulgate regulations to
implement migratory bird treaties with a number of countries,
including Mexico. No additional statutory authority is required
to implement the Mexico Protocol.
The term ``indigenous inhabitants'' in Article I of the
Mexico Protocol refers primarily to Alaska Natives who are
permanent residents of villages within designated areas of
Alaska where subsistence hunting of migratory birds is
customary and traditional. The term also includes non-Native
permanent residents of these villages who have legitimate
subsistence hunting needs. Subsistence harvest areas encompass
the customary and traditional hunting areas of villages with a
customary and traditional pattern of migratory bird harvest.
These areas are to be designated through a
deliberativeregulatory process, which would include the management
bodies discussed below and employ the best available information on
nutritional and cultural needs, customary and traditional use, and
other pertinent factors.
Once regulations are established, most village areas within
the Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Archipelago, the Aleutian Islands,
and areas north and west of the Alaska Range would qualify as
subsistence harvest areas. Areas that would generally not
qualify for a spring or summer harvest include the Anchorage,
Matanuska-Susitna and Fairbanks North Star boroughs, the Kenai
Peninsula roaded area and southeast Alaska. The list of
exceptions does not mean that individual communities within
areas that are generally excluded cannot meet the test for
designation as subsistence harvest areas. For example, data
indicate that there is customary and traditional use of gull
eggs by indigenous inhabitants in some villages in southeast
Alaska; these villages could be included for this limited
purpose even through indigenous inhabitants in southeast Alaska
generally would be excluded from the spring/summer harvest.
In recognition of their need to assist their immediate
families in meeting their nutritional and other essential
needs, or for the traditional teachingof cultural knowledge,
residents of excluded areas in Alaska may be invited to participate in
the customary spring and summer migratory bird harvest within the
designated subsistence harvest areas around the villages in which their
immediate families have membership. Such participation would require
permission of the village council and an appropriate permit issued
through the management body implementing the Protocol. ``Immediate
family'' includes children, parents, grandparents, and siblings.
Harvest levels of migratory birds in the United States may
vary for all users, commensurate with the size of the migratory
bird populations. Any restrictions in harvest levels of
migratory birds necessary for conservation shall be shared
equitably between users in Alaska and users in others states,
taking into account nutritional needs. The Mexico Protocol is
not intended to create a preference in favor of any group of
users in the United States or to modify any preference that may
exist.
Consistency with other Migratory Bird Conventions
The Mexico Protocol is needed in order for the United
States to be able to implement the Canada Protocol. That
Protocol, which similarly addresses the issue of the spring and
summer hunt, is pending before the Senate. The spring/summer
harvest provisions inthe Canada Protocol as they apply to wild
ducks cannot be implemented by the United States until the 1936 U.S.-
Mexico Convention permits such a harvest of wild ducks. As a matter of
U.S. domestic law, the Department of Interior may not implement a
provision of one convention that allows a hunt prohibited by the
provision of another, since U.S. courts have held that the statute
implementing the various migratory bird conventions should be
interpreted to require application of the most restrictive convention
in the case of conflict. See Alaska Fish & Wildlife Fed'n & Outdoor
Council, Inc. v. Dunkle, 829 F. 2d 933, 941 (9th Cir. 1987), cert.
den., 485 U.S. 988 (1988).
It will not be necessary to amend additional conventions
in order to implement the Mexico Protocol or the Canada
Protocol.
This Protocol represents a major step forward in the
conservation and management of migratory birds on a sustainable
basis. Properly implemented, it will improve the health of the
North American migratory bird population and protect the
interests of conservationists, sports hunters, indigenous
people and all others who value this important resource.
Accordingly, I recommend that the Mexico Protocol be
transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to
ratification.
Respectfully submitted,
Madeleine Albright.