[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 147 (Tuesday, August 2, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18774]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 2, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 36
Regulations Prohibiting Taking of Free Ranging Wolves and Wolverines on
Alaska National Wildlife Refuges on the Same Day the Trapper or Hunter
Is Airborne; Rule
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 36
RIN 1018-AC16
Regulations Prohibiting Taking of Free Ranging Wolves and
Wolverines on Alaska National Wildlife Refuges on the Same Day the
Trapper or Hunter Is Airborne
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule prohibits trappers and hunters from shooting free
ranging wolves and wolverines in national wildlife refuges (refuges) in
Alaska on the same day in which the person is airborne, except that
trappers may use firearms to dispatch wolves or wolverines that are
legally trapped or snared on the same day in which flying occurred. The
prohibition does not apply to trappers and hunters transported on
regularly scheduled commercial flights between public airports. Hunting
and trapping will continue to be allowed on Alaska refuges pursuant to
applicable, non-conflicting State of Alaska (State) and Federal laws
and regulations, as specifically authorized by the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980. Aircraft access to
and within Alaska refuges for sport or subsistence hunting, trapping,
fishing and other traditional activities, and for travel to and from
villages and homesites will continue to be allowed subject to
reasonable regulations to protect refuge resources and ensure that uses
are compatible with refuge purposes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 1994.
ADDRESSES: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Refuges and Wildlife, 1011
East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503-6199.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Refer all questions to Tony Booth at
the address listed under the heading ADDRESSES: Telephone 907-786-3384.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 (Pub. L.
89-669; 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) provides guidelines and directives for
the use of the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to allow uses within any area of the refuge
system provided ``such uses are compatible with the major purposes for
which such areas were established.''
In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA; Pub. L. 96-487) which established new, and
added to existing, national wildlife refuges in Alaska. Sections 302
and 303 of ANILCA established purposes for which each refuge shall be
managed. Section 304 of ANILCA prohibits the Secretary, subject to
valid existing rights, from permitting any use for any purpose unless
such use or purpose is compatible with the purposes of the refuge.
Section 304 also requires the Secretary to prescribe such regulations
and impose such terms and conditions as may be necessary and
appropriate to ensure that activities carried out under any use granted
under any authority are so compatible. Section 1110 of ANILCA directs
the Secretary to permit use of airplanes on Alaska refuges for
traditional activities and that such access shall be subject to
reasonable regulation to protect the natural and other values of the
refuge. The intent of Congress to allow hunting and trapping on Alaska
refuges is reflected in the special regulations for Alaska National
Wildlife Refuges contained in Title 50, Part 36 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR).
In 1992, after many years of controversy, the State prohibited the
land and shoot method of taking wolves by making it illegal to shoot a
wolf until 3:00 a.m. on the day following the day the hunter or trapper
was airborne (i.e., ``same-day-airborne'' prohibition). Prohibition of
taking wildlife during the same-day-airborne allows adequate access to
wildlife resources but prevents abuses that could result from hunters
or trappers being able to spot and drive or track wildlife from the air
and then land and immediately shoot the animal. However, in July 1993,
the Alaska Board of Game (Board) reconsidered the same-day-airborne
prohibition and adopted a new regulation that allows trappers to shoot
wolves and certain other furbearers the same-day-airborne. The new
State trapping regulation is more restrictive than the pre-1992 land
and shoot allowances in that it requires the trapper to be at least 300
feet from the airplane before shooting the furbearer. As of October 1,
1993, any person who purchases a trapping license can shoot free
ranging wolves same-day-airborne if at least 300 feet from the
airplane. State hunting regulations continue to prohibit hunters from
shooting wolves and wolverines until 3:00 a.m. on the day after the
hunter flew.
In response to the State's regulation, the Service published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register on December 22, 1993, which is
intended to accomplish the following:
1. Prohibit same-day-airborne taking of wolves and wolverines with
firearms except that trappers could use firearms to dispatch legally
caught wolves or wolverines in a trap or snare on the same-day-
airborne, and this prohibition would not apply to people transported on
regularly scheduled commercial airlines between public airports;
2. Satisfy legal mandates to provide for hunting and trapping on
Alaska refuges and adequately provide for aircraft access to refuge
resources;
3. Maintain compatibility between hunting and trapping and
legislative purposes, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, and established Service policies; and
4. Provide more effective enforcement of hunting and trapping laws
and regulations.
The proposed rule had a 60-day public comment period and public
hearings were held in Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska.
Summary of Public Comments
Twenty-four persons presented oral comments at public hearings in
Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska. The Service also received
approximately 2100 letters and cards from the public commenting
specifically on the proposed rule. The Service also received several
hundred letters that do not specifically address the proposed rule, but
express concerns related to same-day-airborne or land and shoot taking
of wolves. The Service also considered comments received from the
Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils and the administrative record of
those Council meetings where the issue of same-day-airborne taking of
wolves was addressed. After considering all public comments, the
Service has decided to proceed with this final rule and found no
compelling reason to change the regulatory language from that provided
in the proposed rule.
Analysis of Public Comments
(a) Opinions of the Alaska Public not Seriously Considered
Several commenters, who objected to the proposed regulation,
expressed their belief that the Service ignores opinions of Alaska
residents and inappropriately relies on ``Lower 48'' opinions.
The Service considered all public opinions and views on the
proposed rule and did not disregard opinions of Alaskan residents. In
fact, the Service provided special attention to comments and concerns
received from Alaskans. Comments from Alaskan residents were mixed, but
the majority of Alaskans apparently do not support same-day-airborne
shooting of wolves. A 1992 public opinion survey of Alaskans (by
Dittman Research Corporation) indicated that 66 percent of the survey
participants felt that the public should not be allowed to shoot wolves
that are located with use of aircraft. The proposed rule received
strong support from several individuals and organizations associated
with the Alaska tourism industry who objected to allowing same-day-
airborne shooting of wolves and noted that it portrays a bad image of
Alaskans.
(b) Support of the Proposed Regulations or Stronger or Broader
Provisions to Extend Prohibition to Other Areas or Other Species
The Service received over 2100 public comments in direct response
to the proposed rule. The Service and the Department of Interior also
received, and continue to receive, several hundred other letters
expressing opposition to same-day-airborne taking of wolves and
requesting action to prohibit such activities. The overwhelming
majority of the comments supported the proposed regulation. Numerous
commenters also stated their preference for stronger or broader
regulations against same-day-airborne methods of taking wildlife. Many
people advocated elimination of all hunting and trapping of wolves and
many others advocated extending the applicability of same-day-airborne
shooting prohibitions to other species and/or other areas.
Adoption of this final rule does not foreclose additional
regulatory measures by the Service to address same-day-airborne
shooting of wildlife in areas outside the National Wildlife Refuge
System. The Service has the authority to take such action pursuant to
the Airborne Hunting Act if warranted. The Service acknowledges some of
the justification or rationale for prohibiting same-day-airborne take
of wolves and wolverines would apply to other wildlife species as well.
In fact, the Service strongly considered extending the same-day-
airborne prohibitions to other game and furbearer species. However, in
order to minimize the preemptive effect of this regulation on
traditional State management authorities and responsibilities, the
Service limited applicability to the species most subjected or most
vulnerable to the problems associated with same-day-airborne take.
Wolves and wolverines receive relatively high interest and demand by
hunters and trappers who use airplanes in Alaska, from both a
recreational standpoint as a game species and from an economic
standpoint as furbearers that generally bring a good price for their
furs. Other species not already protected by State same-day-airborne
regulations are far less vulnerable to abuse of same-day-airborne
methods and/or less desirable to hunters and trappers who use
airplanes. Therefore, the Service decided that there was not sufficient
justification to include other species.
Several commenters who supported the proposed rule requested
emergency closure actions to immediately eliminate such activities on
refuges. Emergency closure authority is generally limited to more
immediate threats or problems. The same-day-airborne shooting of wolves
involves long-term and chronic problems, but poses no immediate threat
to wolf populations or other Alaska refuge resources.
(c) Non-Compliance With Access Provisions of Section 1110 of ANILCA
Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule
violates access provisions in Section 1110 of ANILCA and applicable
regulations (43 CFR 36.11) and that the Service did not comply with
administrative procedures for restricting access. Section 1110 of
ANILCA permits use of airplanes on Alaska refuges for traditional
activities (subject to reasonable regulations to protect natural and
other values) and provides that such access may only be closed by the
Service following a determination that such access is detrimental to
refuge resource values.
The regulation does not restrict aircraft access to or within
national wildlife refuges. Aircraft access to and within Alaska refuges
for hunting, trapping, fishing and other traditional activities will
continue to be allowed. It provides reasonable restriction against
shooting free ranging wolves and wolverines immediately after a person
has flown in an aircraft, as necessary to alleviate law enforcement
problems and protect values associated with ethical and fair chase
standards. These regulations are not solely dependent on a
determination that same-day-airborne hunting or trapping is detrimental
to wolf populations. Even if construed as an access restriction, the
Service believes the same-day-airborne prohibition is a reasonable
regulation needed to protect natural and other values of Alaska
refuges. The Service reviewed the administrative procedures related to
the promulgation of these regulations and determined the process used
does fulfill the legal public participation and closure requirements
(50 CFR 36.42) related to the restriction of an otherwise allowed
activity.
(d) Legal Authority to Regulate the Taking of Fish and Wildlife
The most prevalent objection to the proposed rule involved the
Service's authority to regulate methods and means of harvesting
resident game species. The State of Alaska and many Alaskans argued the
sole authority to regulate hunting and trapping of resident wildlife in
Alaska rests with the State. As such, they claimed the proposed rule
constitutes an unauthorized and unwarranted extension of Federal
jurisdiction that intrudes into the State's responsibilities to manage
resident fish and wildlife. Associated arguments were presented that
the proposed regulations violate Section 1314 of ANILCA by attempting
to regulate harvest methods and contradicts Department of the Interior
policy concerning State and Federal relationships, and the Master
Memorandum of Understanding between the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game and the Service.
Our review found that the regulation is in compliance with Section
1314 of ANILCA and there is ample legal precedent supporting the
Service's authority to regulate uses on national wildlife refuges as
needed to ensure compatibility with refuge purposes and legal mandates,
and to protect refuge resources and other values. Section 1314 of
ANILCA does not diminish this authority.
The Service remains committed to administering our mandates and
responsibilities in a way that avoids unnecessary interference with the
State of Alaska's ability to manage resident wildlife. However, the
Service feels the regulation is needed because the State's revised
regulation authorizing same-day-airborne shooting of wolves allows, and
even invites, excessive reliance on aircraft to pursue and take wolves,
which inevitably results in abuse and violations of the Airborne
Hunting Act and exacerbates enforcement problems. The significant
diversion of resource management funds needed to reasonably ensure
compliance with the Airborne Hunting Act and other applicable laws and
regulations, when State regulations allow same-day-airborne shooting of
wolves, contravenes the Refuge Recreation Act. Though airplanes serve
an important role as a vehicle for access in Alaska, it is evident from
public comments received that most of the American public objects to
the heavy and direct reliance on aircraft to locate and take wolves,
and strongly supports prohibition of such activities on refuge lands.
The Service repeatedly advised the State of our concerns and initiated
promulgation of these regulations only after the State failed to
adequately address Service concerns.
(e) The Proposed Rule Is Not Based on a Biological Problem
Many commenters stated that there is not a biological basis for the
regulations since wolf and wolverine populations in Alaska are healthy;
these species are managed by the State to ensure continued viability of
populations; Service concerns about impacts to the species are
speculative; and there is no data to indicate that same-day-airborne
shooting of wolves constitutes a threat to wolf populations in Alaska.
The need for this regulation is not based on immediate threats to
wolf or wolverine populations on Alaskan refuges. The Service does not
expect a significant increase in the legal harvest of wolves to result
from the State regulatory allowance for same-day-airborne shooting of
wolves. Only a very small portion of Alaskans participate in or benefit
from whatever same-day-airborne wolf hunting and trapping opportunities
the State allows. The Service is more concerned about the associated
enforcement problems that will provide additional incentive and
opportunity for illegal harvests and ethical problems. Furthermore,
there is potential for localized impacts on refuge wolf populations, if
trappers or hunters are allowed and it becomes more popular to shoot
wolves the same-day-airborne.
State officials indicated that same-day-airborne shooting of wolves
is not intended to manage or control wolf populations, but only to
provide harvest opportunity. Thus there is no biological or resource
management need to allow such activities. In deciding to proceed with
this regulation, the Service found, after consideration of all
substantive public comment, that all problems associated with same-day-
airborne shooting of wolves far outweigh the limited benefits or
additional opportunity it provides, particularly when there is no
biological or management need to continue such practices.
(f) Law Enforcement Concerns and Justification are Speculative and
Misleading
Several commenters expressed their belief that the Service's
concerns related to law enforcement problems were unfounded or
exaggerated and that the regulations would mislead or confuse hunters
who are trying to comply with State regulations.
The Service's law enforcement concerns and justifications are based
on professional opinions and extensive experiences of Service law
enforcement agents in Alaska. Testimony provided by defendants during
cases involving prosecution for violations of the Airborne Hunting Act
corroborate the Service's law enforcement concerns.
In addition, the Service's law enforcement concerns and
justifications for the proposed rule were reinforced by comments
received from some Alaskan residents who have personally witnessed or
observed that same-day-airborne take commonly entails abusive and
illegal practices of chasing, herding and harassing wolves with
airplanes. Some wolf hunters and aircraft owners/operators indicated
that it is all but impossible or rare to take wolves same-day-airborne
without violating the Airborne Hunting Act. Some commenters made the
point that the only effective means to take wolves same-day-airborne is
to drive a wolf to exhaustion and/or to a place where a hunter can
safely land and shoot it.
(g) Ethics and Fair Chase for Hunting Do Not Apply to Trapping
Some commenters stated same-day-airborne taking of wolves is done
under a State trapping license and, therefore, the practice does not
conflict with Service policy in the Refuge Manual or other fair chase
principles and ethics associated with sport hunting.
Based on the overwhelming majority of comments received, this
belief is not shared by the large majority of the public, including
most other sportsmen. The Service does not believe that it should
ignore ethical and fair chase considerations that strongly affect
public perceptions of hunting and trapping on refuges. To disregard or
fail to consider and respond to ethical considerations of fair chase
and other perceptions and views shared by the majority of the general
public may ultimately jeopardize the future of hunting and trapping
opportunities on national wildlife refuges.
Alaska regulations allow trappers to shoot wolves and other
furbearers with firearms or any other legal weapon as a lawful method
of trapping. Thus, a person can shoot wolves with a trapping license as
well as with a hunting license. The Service disagrees with the argument
that possession of a trapping license exempts a person from all ethical
obligations and standards of fair chase, particularly when anyone can
purchase a trapping license to shoot wolves.
(h) Inconsistent With Federal Government's Legal Obligation to
Accommodate Subsistence Uses
Several commenters expressed views that the regulations would limit
subsistence activities or reduce traditional trapping opportunities and
are not in compliance with Section 811 of ANILCA requiring that
subsistence users have reasonable access to subsistence resources.
The regulations apply to general or sport harvest of wolves and
wolverines. Federal subsistence regulations already prohibit same-day-
airborne take of wolves and wolverines for subsistence purposes. Access
is not restricted, as already discussed.
The Service received contradictory comments and views from Alaskan
residents on the need and legitimacy of same-day-airborne shooting of
wolves as customary and traditional subsistence activity. The State and
some Alaskan residents, including some rural Alaskans, contend that
same-day-airborne or land and shoot take of wolves is a traditional and
legitimate subsistence activity that should be allowed to continue on
Alaska refuges. Other Alaskan residents contend it is not a legitimate
subsistence activity, but rather a sport or recreational activity for
urban hunters and trappers.
(i) Potential Economic Effects on Individual Trappers
Several commenters stated that the regulation could have a
significant economic impact on individual trappers dependent on this
customary and traditional practice. The loss of opportunity for some
trappers to take a few or an occasional wolf while same-day-airborne
could mean a substantial reduction in seasonal gross value of the
individual trapper's income.
The potential for such impacts is likely minimal but difficult to
ascertain in light of contradictory public responses. The Service
received few comments from individuals who claimed that the regulation
would significantly impact them economically. Some individuals
experienced in wolf hunting and trapping contend that, because the
opportunity to shoot wolves same-day-airborne is very limited, few
wolves are taken by such methods. Other individuals who have hunted and
trapped wolves indicated that shooting wolves same-day-airborne should
be allowed because it constitutes the most or only effective means of
trapping wolves. However, there is no compelling evidence that
individuals are likely to suffer significant economic hardship over
loss of limited opportunities to legally shoot wolves same-day-
airborne.
(j) Relationship Between the Prohibition of Same-Day-Airborne Taking
and the Purposes, Missions and Policies of the National Wildlife Refuge
System in Alaska
Some commenters questioned or disputed whether there was any
legitimate relationship between the prohibition of same-day-airborne
shooting of wolves and wolverines and the legislative purposes or
missions and policies applicable to Alaska refuges.
In addition to the legislative purposes of each refuge, there are
various other applicable legislative mandates, missions and policies
which guide or must be considered in management of Alaska refuges.
Collectively, our legal mandates and mission and policy guidance direct
management emphasis on Alaska refuges at conserving, protecting and
enhancing fish and wildlife resources in their natural diversity to
meet a broad spectrum of public needs and benefits.
In this case, the Service carefully evaluated the implications of
allowing same-day-airborne shooting of wolves on Alaska refuges. Though
it poses no immediate biological threat, there is no biological or
management need for allowing same-day-airborne shooting of wolves and
very few people benefit from the additional opportunities it provides.
The Service balanced the limited benefits of allowing same-day-airborne
shooting of wolves against the associated law enforcement and ethical
problems, and the increased law enforcement costs of allowing this
activity. The Service ultimately concluded that prohibition of same-
day-airborne shooting of wolves and wolverines would serve to
collectively benefit or further the legal mandates, purposes, missions
and policies applicable to management of the national wildlife refuge
system in Alaska. Applicable Service policies concerning ethical
standards and fair chase were discussed in the proposed rule document.
(k) Undermines or Interferes With State's Ability to Control or Manage
Wolves and Affected Prey Species
Some commenters argued that the same-day-airborne prohibition takes
away or undermines an effective management tool of the State to control
wolf populations to benefit game species.
State officials have asserted that same-day-airborne allowances are
intended only to provide a reasonable harvest opportunity for trappers,
and are not intended for predator control or management purposes. It is
our evaluation that the Service's same-day-airborne prohibition will
not undermine or interfere with State wolf management or control
programs.
(l) Unwarranted Restriction of Opportunity To Continue Traditional Use
Some commenters argued that same-day-airborne or even land and
shoot methods of taking wolves in Alaska constitute traditional uses
that Congress intended to protect under provisions of ANILCA. As such,
our proposed regulation would eliminate legitimate traditional hunting
and trapping activities and access needed in remote roadless areas and
therefore violates the Congressional intent of ANILCA. On the other
hand, some commenters stated the view that excessive and direct
reliance on aircraft for taking wolves should not be used or allowed as
replacement for the traditional hunting and trapping skills and
activities that Congress intended to protect in Alaska.
The ANILCA provides for the continuation of hunting and trapping
opportunities as legitimate traditional uses of refuge lands in Alaska,
and specifically allows use of aircraft for access to and within
refuges for such traditional uses, subject to reasonable regulations
and compatibility with refuge purposes. The proposed rule does not
compromise either of these directives. It does not close refuges to
hunting or trapping, nor does it preclude or restrict aircraft access
for these and other traditional activities. ANILCA does not direct the
Service to ensure use of aircraft for land and shoot or related methods
of same-day-airborne shooting of wolves and other wildlife. There is no
clear indication, nor is it reasonable to presume, that Congress
intended to allow such activities on public lands, particularly when
they invite or result in chronic violations of Federal laws and
policies.
(m) Same-Day-Airborne Methods Provide the Most or Only Effective
Alternative Means of Taking Wolves in Alaska
Several commenters who indicated experience in trapping and hunting
wolves expressed the concern that same-day-airborne shooting
opportunities provide the only effective means or the most effective
alternative to taking wolves with traps and snares in the vast and
remote roadless areas of Alaska. A few commenters argued that same-day-
airborne or even land and shoot methods offer more humane and more
selective means of taking wolves. Traps and snares take non-target
species while same-day-airborne methods are more selective to the
target species.
The Service considered and weighed such potential advantages of
allowing same-day-airborne shooting wolves and wolverines against the
problems and consequences and found the problems outweigh the benefits.
Evaluation of public comments on the benefits and effectiveness of
same-day-airborne take of wolves was complicated by the apparent
contradiction or inconsistency in responses from people purportedly
experienced in such methods. Some commenters argued that same-day-
airborne shooting is needed to maintain an effective and selective
method of taking wolves. Other experienced wolf hunters and/or trappers
argued that it should be allowed by virtue of its very limited
effectiveness. They contended that same-day-airborne shooting of
wolves, particularly with the State's new requirement to be 300 feet
from the airplane, involves very difficult methods that require
considerable skill and offer very limited opportunities to be
successful. It results in a very limited increase in harvest. Still
other responses from some individuals knowledgeable or experienced in
same-day-airborne shooting activities reinforce the Service's concerns
that it allows or invites abuse and violations of the Airborne Hunting
Act and should be prohibited.
(n) Advantages and Impacts of Using Aircraft Exaggerated
Some commenters disagreed with statements in the proposed rule
concerning the advantage of using aircraft to detect and kill wildlife,
contending that the Service exaggerated the advantages and impacts of
using aircraft for taking wolves.
As discussed above, there is significant inconsistency in public
comments on the effectiveness and impacts of same-day-airborne shooting
of wolves, even among those individuals experienced in such activities.
The Service recognizes that opportunities and advantages to hunters or
trappers who shoot wolves on the same-day-airborne, as well as the
impacts to wolf populations, are generally limited when such activities
are accomplished in compliance with the Airborne Hunting Act.
Unfortunately, same-day-airborne allowances create significant
enforcement problems and provide greater opportunity and advantage to
violators.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rulemaking does not contain information collection
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Environmental Considerations
This rulemaking is categorically excluded under 40 Code of Federal
Regulations 1508.4 from the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) as an activity directly
related to the enforcement of fish and wildlife laws and as an
administrative action that will have no potential for causing
substantial environmental impact.
Economic Effect
This rulemaking was not subject to Office of Management and Budget
review under Executive Order 12866. A review under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) has been done to
determine whether the rulemaking would have a significant effect on a
substantial number of small entities, which include businesses,
organizations or governmental jurisdictions. This rulemaking would have
no significant effect on such entities. Public comment revealed that
trappers who use aircraft for access rarely take free ranging wolves
while working their traplines after landing.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 36
Aircraft, Alaska, Alaska National Wildlife Refuge System, Hunting,
Trapping, Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.
Accordingly, Part 36 of Chapter 1 of Title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 36--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 36 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 460(k) et seq., 668dd et seq., 742(a) et
seq., 3101 et seq., and 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
2. Section 36.32 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(1)(iv) to read
as follows:
Sec. 36.32 Taking of fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) It shall be unlawful for a person having been airborne to use
a firearm or any other weapon to take or assist in taking a wolf or
wolverine until after 3:00 a.m. on the day following the day in which
the flying occurred, except that a trapper may use a firearm or any
other weapon to dispatch a legally caught wolf or wolverine in a trap
or snare on the same day in which the flying occurred. This prohibition
does not apply to flights on regularly scheduled commercial airlines
between regularly maintained public airports.
* * * * *
Dated: July 18, 1994.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 94-18774 Filed 8-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P