Now Indians want use electronic calls.....

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by KENNEDY63, Sep 16, 2017.

  1. KENNEDY63

    KENNEDY63 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,364
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Location:
    MINNESOTA
    Time for all to be treated equally.....I really don't get U.S. based "subsistence" hunting in this day and age.

    (e) Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Odanah, Wisconsin (Tribal Members Only)

    Since 1985, various bands of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians have exercised judicially recognized, off-reservation hunting rights for migratory birds in Wisconsin. The specific regulations were established by the Service in consultation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) (GLIFWC is an intertribal agency exercising delegated natural resource management and regulatory authority from its member Tribes in portions of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota). Beginning in 1986, a Tribal season on ceded lands in the western portion of the Michigan Upper Peninsula was developed in coordination with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. We have approved regulations for Tribal members in both Michigan and Wisconsin since the 1986-87 hunting season. In 1987, GLIFWC requested, and we approved, regulations to permit Tribal members to hunt on ceded lands in Minnesota, as well as in Michigan and Wisconsin. The States of Michigan and Wisconsin originally concurred with the regulations, although both Wisconsin and Michigan have raised various concerns over the years. Minnesota did not concur with the original regulations, stressing that the State would not recognize Chippewa Indian hunting rights in Minnesota's treaty area until a court with jurisdiction over the State acknowledges and defines the extent of these rights. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the existence of the tribes' treaty reserved rights in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band, 199 S. Ct. 1187 (1999).

    We acknowledge all of the States' concerns, but point out that the U.S. Government has recognized the Indian treaty reserved rights, and that acceptable hunting regulations have been successfully implemented in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Consequently, in view of the above, we have approved regulations since the 1987-88 hunting season on ceded lands in all three States. In fact, this recognition of the principle of treaty reserved rights for band members to hunt and fish was pivotal in our decision to approve a 1991-92 season for the 1836 ceded area in Michigan. Since then, in the 2007 Consent Decree, the 1836 Treaty Tribes' and Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment established court-approved regulations pertaining to off-reservation hunting rights for migratory birds.

    For 2017, GLIFWC proposes off-reservation special migratory bird hunting regulations on behalf of the member Tribes of the Voigt Intertribal Task Force of GLIFWC (for the 1837 and 1842 Treaty areas in Wisconsin and Michigan), the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and the six Wisconsin Bands (for the 1837 Treaty area in Minnesota), and the Bay Mills Indian Community (for the 1836 Treaty area in Michigan). Member Tribes of the Task Force are: the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, and the Sokaogon Chippewa Community (Mole Lake Band), all in Wisconsin; the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in Minnesota; and the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Chippewa Indians and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community in Michigan.

    The GLIFWC 2017 proposal has four changes from regulations approved last season. First, in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas, the GLIFWC proposal would allow up to 50 Tribal hunters to use electronic calls for any open season under a limited and experimental design under a special Tribal permit. In addition to obtaining a special permit, the Tribal hunter would be required to complete and submit a hunt diary for each hunt where electronic calls were used. Second, GLIFWC also proposes to allow the take of migratory birds (primarily waterfowl) with the use of hand-held nets, hand-held snares, and/or capture birds by hand in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas. The GLIWFC proposal for the use of nets, snares, or by hand would include the take of birds at night. Third, GLIFWC proposes beginning the current swan season September 1 rather than November 1 in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas. However, the trumpeter swan quota would remain at 10 swans. Lastly, GLIFWC proposes the addition of a sandhill crane hunting season in the 1836 Treaty Area.

    GLIFWC states that the proposed regulatory changes are intended to increase the subsistence opportunities for tribal migratory bird hunters and provide opportunities for more efficient harvesting. Under the GLIFWC's proposed regulations, GLIFWC expects total ceded territory harvest to be approximately 2,000 to 3,000 ducks, 400 to 600 geese, 20 sandhill cranes, and 20 swans, which, with the exception of ducks, is roughly similar to anticipated levels in previous years for those species for which seasons were established. GLIFWC further anticipates that tribal harvest will remain low given the small number of tribal hunters and the limited opportunity to harvest more than a small number of birds on most hunting trips.

    Recent GLIFWC harvest surveys (1996-98, 2001, 2004, 2007-08, 2011, 2012, and 2015) indicate that tribal off-reservation waterfowl harvest has averaged fewer than 1,100 ducks and 250 geese annually. In the latest survey year for which we have specific results (2015), an estimated 297 hunters hunted a total of 2,190 days and harvested 2,727 ducks (1.2 ducks per day) and 639 geese. The greatest number of ducks reported harvested in a single day was 10, while the highest number of geese reported taken on a single outing was 6. Mallards, wood ducks, and blue-winged teal composed about 72 percent of the duck harvest. Two sandhill cranes were reported harvested in each of the first three Tribal sandhill crane seasons, with 3 reported harvested in 2015. No swans have been harvested. About 81 percent of the estimated hunting days took place in Wisconsin, with the remainder occurring in Michigan. As in past years, most hunting took place in or near counties with reservations. Overall, analysis of hunter survey data over 1996-2015 indicates a general downward, or flat, trend in both harvest and hunter participation. More specific discussion on each of the proposals follows below.Start Printed Page 39721

    Allowing Electronic Calls
    In the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas, GLIFWC proposes allowing an experimental application of electronic calls with up to 50 Tribal hunters allowed to use the devices. Individuals using electronic calls would be required to obtain a special Tribal permit, complete a hunt diary for each hunt where the devices are used, and submit the hunt diary to the Commission within 2 weeks of the end of the season in order to be eligible to obtain a permit for the following year. GLIFWC proposes to require hunters to record the date, time, and location of each hunt; the number of hunters; the number of each species harvested per hunting event; if other hunters were in the area, any interactions with other hunters; and other information GLIFWC deems appropriate. GLIFWC would then summarize the diary results and submit a report to the Service. Barring unforeseen results, GLIFWC proposes that this experimental application be replicated for 3 years, after which a full evaluation would be completed.

    As we have stated over the last 6 years (76 FR 54676, September 1, 2011; 77 FR 54451, September 5, 2012; 78 FR 53218, August 28, 2013; 79 FR 52226, September 3, 2014; 80 FR 52663, September 1, 2015; 81 FR 62404, September 9, 2016), the issue of allowing electronic calls and other electronic devices for migratory game bird hunting has been highly debated and highly controversial over the last 40 years, similar to other prohibited hunting methods. Electronic calls, i.e., the use or aid of recorded or electronic amplified bird calls or sounds, or recorded or electrically amplified imitations of bird calls or sounds to lure or attract migratory game birds to hunters, were Federally prohibited in 1957, because of their effectiveness in attracting and aiding the harvest of ducks and geese and because they are generally not considered a legitimate component of hunting (see restriction in 50 CFR 20.21(g)). In 1999, after much debate, the migratory bird regulations were revised to allow the use of electronic calls for the take of light geese (lesser snow geese and Ross geese) during a light-goose-only season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, were closed (64 FR 7507, February 16, 1999; 64 FR 71236, December 20, 1999; 73 FR 65926, November 5, 2008). The regulations were also changed in 2006, to allow the use of electronic calls for the take of resident Canada geese during Canada-goose-only September seasons when all other waterfowl and crane seasons, excluding falconry, were closed (71 FR 45964, August 10, 2006). In both instances, these changes were made in order to significantly increase the take of these species due to serious population overabundance, depredation issues, or public health and safety issues, or a combination of these.

    In our previous responses on this issue, we have also discussed information stemming from the use of electronic calls during the special light-goose seasons and our conclusions as to its applicability to most other waterfowl species. Given available evidence on the effectiveness of electronic calls, we continue to be concerned about the large biological uncertainty surrounding any widespread use of electronic calls. Additionally, given the fact that tribal waterfowl hunting covered by this proposal would occur on ceded lands that are not in the ownership of the Tribes, we remain very concerned that the use of electronic calls to take waterfowl would lead to confusion on the part of the public, wildlife-management agencies, and law enforcement officials in implementing the requirements of 50 CFR part 20. Further, similar to the impacts of baiting, we have concerns on the uncertain zone of influence range from the use of electronic calls which could potentially increase harvest from nontribal hunters operating within areas that electronic calls are used during the dates of the general hunt. However, unlike baiting, once the electronic call is removed from an area, the attractant or lure is immediately removed with presumably little to no lingering effects.

    Notwithstanding our above concerns, we understand and appreciate GLIFWC's position on this issue, their desire to increase tribal hunter opportunity, harvest, and participation, and the importance that GLIFWC has ascribed to these issues. We further appreciate GLIFWC's latest proposal on the issue. GLIFWC has proposed a limited use of electronic calls under an experimental design with up to only 50 Tribal hunters. Hunters would be required to obtain special permits and complete and submit a hunt diary for each hunt where electronic calls were used. Clearly, GLIFWC has given this issue considerable thought. In our recent discussions with them, they have willingly discussed our concerns and all the uncertainties and difficulties surrounding them. Therefore, we agree with the tribes that much of the large uncertainty surrounding any widespread use of electronic calls could be potentially controlled, or significantly lessened, by this very modest experiment.

    In that light, we are proposing GLIFWC's limited experimental approach with the hope of gaining some additional information and knowledge about the use of electronic calls and their effects on waterfowl. Ideally, this limited approach would include utilizing electronic calls both for Canada geese (where they may already be used in some instances) and new efforts for ducks. Important data related to tribal hunter interest, participation, effects on targeted species, and harvest would need to be closely tracked and reported, as GLIFWC has proposed. We conclude that the experimental removal of the electronic call prohibition, with the proposed limited design, would be consistent with helping address and answer some of our long-standing concerns, and thus we support GLIFWC's proposal to allow the experimental use of electronic calls in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas for any open season for a 3-year experimental period.

    https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...hunting-regulations-on-certain-federal-indian
     
  2. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,477
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    At least in CA... electronic or mechanically operated calling or sound reproducing devices are prohibited when taking migratory game birds (CCR, Title 14, Section 507[c].
     
  3. Bear

    Bear Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    28,514
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Location:
    God Bless Texas!!!
    Good people the Chippewa.
     
  4. eel river

    eel river Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,283
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Location:
    indiana
    Probably just wanting to level tge playing field with many of the southern boys who likely need all the accessories to kill ducks.
     
  5. lugnut

    lugnut Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,585
    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    cali
    Can I identify as an Indian?
     
  6. CookMan

    CookMan Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,511
    Joined:
    May 29, 2015
    Location:
    AL
    My head hurts from that! And what does it matter, and you cant stop it!
     
  7. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,477
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    Words to live by. :l
     
  8. blacktail

    blacktail Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,800
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Location:
    oregon coast
    Might as well let them.
    The tribes kill anything they want, when and how they want.
    We have big game units that aren't part of the Rez that they can kill anything. Written into the treaties 150 years ago.
    Absolutely ridiculous. Flat out amazing how their subsistence life style requires killing giant mule deer in the rut with spotlights.
     
    Squaller likes this.
  9. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,477
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    The electronic calling is more of an example of when cultures collide.

    For example... take SE Asia. After war activity slowed down in the early 1970s lots of refugees migrated to the US. The people brought their fishing/hunting version of subsistence culture with them. Their fishing/hunting yielded lots of "horror" events that outraged polite society. Even though enforcement stepped in, the old ways have persisted until this day.

    On the one hand we preach assimilation, but only when its convenient. In other cases we glorify celebration of some cultural/historical things because maybe its the nice thing to do.

    To me, if the direction chosen is to criticize the native American wants/needs, then why not equal play on other aspects of native cultures that folks decide are important enough to attempt migrating into American culture.

    Otherwise, what's called tolerance is in fact another flavor of intolerance.
     
    Bear likes this.
  10. CookMan

    CookMan Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,511
    Joined:
    May 29, 2015
    Location:
    AL
    Then dig in a fight it Dogg. You got the power and answers. Go protest it.
     

Share This Page