The View From The USA

Introduction
General awareness in the U.S. of the conflict between the 1916 Migratory Birds Convention (MBC) and the needs of northern people and associated resource management problems arose in the early 1960s shortly after Alaska became a state. At that time attempts by federal agents to enforce the closed season in Alaska provoked strong objection from native hunters and attracted national attention. Since it was clear that people still depended on the birds for food, and no adverse impact on the resource was evident, strict enforcement of the closed season was deemed unnecessary. Thus, the long-standing policy of not enforcing the closed season continued in Alaska as it did in northern Canada. However, the conflict between the treaty and the needs of the people for equitable access to the birds for food was not resolved.

The Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Goose Management Plan
In recent years, failure to resolve the subsistence waterfowl hunting issue has complicated management of diminished populations of geese on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta of Alaska.

The Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta is one of the most important breeding areas for geese and other waterfowl in North America. It is inhabited primarily by Yup'ik Eskimos who traditionally harvest waterfowl in the spring.

During the 1970s and the early -1980s, some of the goose populations were severely reduced. Substantial reduction in the harvest and initiation of other management efforts was required. To facilitate these actions, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the States of Alaska and California, sport hunters and other conservation groups, and the native people of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta developed an informal agreement to cooperate in management. The agreement is now known as the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (ioose Management Plan. The plan is widely recognized as a model for cooperation between user groups and management agencies in the North. However, with no legal mechanism for permitting and regulating traditional spring subsistence hunting of migratory birds, success of the plan depends largely on good will and voluntary cooperation.

Snow geese

Migratory Bird Resource and Harvest Issues
Evaluation of existing or future harvest levels must address specific conservation concerns. In Alaska, these currently include: conservation and recovery of spectacled and Steller's eiders; recovery of Pacific Flyway Canada, white-fronted, and emperor geese, and brant; restoration of the North American duck populations, especially northern pintails; and a few other Iocal resource concerns. Given the dynamic nature of waterfowl populations, monitoring and regulation of harvest must be responsive to conservation issues as they arise. A review of contemporary subsistence harvest patterns is particularly relevant to assessing the potential effects of a convention amendment.

Subsistence hunters in Alaska and Canada traditionally harvest geese, ducks, cranes, and other birds as part of their annual cycle of fishing and hunting, following evolving patterns dating back thousands of years. In Alaska, subsistence harvest of migratory birds occurs primarily in areas away from urban centers and off the road system where fishing and hunting are major components of the regional economy. More than half of this harvest occurs during spring and summer when the MBC prohibits most hunting.

Recent data on subsistence harvests of migratory birds in Alaska have been compiled from studies of 151 communities, sampled generally through the mid-1980s. Primary findings are as follows: the number of subsistence waterfowl hunters in Alaska is estimated to be between 10,000 to 13,000, living in rural areas that support approximately 142,410 people. Rural communities comprise 25.9 percent of the state's population; they have an average composition of 48 percent Alaska natives, but some exceed 90 percent. Community harvest of wild resources are generally greater where there are higher proportion of native residents. Typically, a smaller number of proficient hunters harvest most of the resources in subsistence-dependent communities and share their harvests widely among households.

The estimated annual year-round subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska during the mid-1980s was 307,000 birds, including 80,000 (25.9 percent) geese, 210,000 (68.5 percent) ducks,5,000 (1.7 percent) cranes,7,000 (2.2 percent) swans and 5,000 (1.6 percent) "other" migratory birds (primarily seabirds). Subsistence harvest of migratory birds was estimated to be about five times the size of the sport harvest by urban hunters (56,000 birds). This level of subsistence harvest in Alaska represents about 3.5 percent of ducks and 4.3 percent of geese compared to the total 1990 harvest in the U.S ., and 2.6 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively, of the total 1990 harvest in North America.

Alaska subsistence harvest estimates include birds taken during legal fall and winter hunting seasons. Data from 40 communities indicated that, on an average, it was distributed as follows: 51.4 percent during "spring", 4.4 percent during "mid-summer", and 44.3 percent during "late summer-fall-winter". The annual estimated subsistence harvest of migratory bird eggs in Alaska was 83,600 eggs, of which the majority were gull eggs (68.6 percent) or "other seabird" eggs (15.8 percent).

Public Opinion in the U.S.A.
Fourteen public meetings were held in Alaska, one in each waterfowl flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central and Pacific) in the lower 48 states, and one in Washington, D.C., during the period February to April 1992. Over 200 people attended these meetings. An additional 19 informal meetings were conducted in Alaskan villages and two in Washington, D.C. by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel. Approximately half of the people attending the formal meetings spoke in support of amending the 1916 convention in some fashion. Only 20 people spoke in opposition to amending the convention.

Of 201 written comments received 157 supported amending the convention. Supporting comments were received from 15 native organizations and village councils, seven state wildlife agencies, five conservation groups, and 130 individuals. Written comments in opposition to efforts to amend the 1916 convention numbered 42, including four from waterfowl hunting organizations. Two letters were received from individuals who opposed any migratory bird hunting at all. A detailed summary of the comments from the scoping process will be presented to the public later in the process.

Other groups and individuals, besides subsistence users, support an amendment because they want a basis for regulating and controlling a subsistence harvest that is already occurring. These people support allowing legitimate subsistence hunting while ensuring the conservation of the migratory bird resource.

Opposition to amending the 1916 convention comes from several sources. Many people are concerned that numbers of some waterfowl species are too depleted to justify legalizing additional harvest or to risk increasing the harvest. Some people are concerned that institutionalized subsistence hunting would affect them adversely. They believe that amending the 1916 convention could result in increased harvest in northern areas that would lead to reduced opportunities for other users.

Some are opposed to spring hunting under any circumstances. Others expressing concern do not object to the amendment or subsistence hunting in principle, but want assurances that such hunting will be carefully regulated and will not occur at the expense of uses elsewhere. In the U.S., there is particular concern about subsistence hunting of waterfowl in Canada where a large proportion of the ducks and geese important to U.S. hunters are produced. Points that are of great concern to those interested in amending the MBC include:

1. Who would qualify for subsistence take;

2. Geographic areas open to subsistence hunting;

3. Definition of competent authority;

4. How birds can be used;

5. Methods of regulating harvest;

6. Levels of harvest; and

7. Enforcement and monitoring mechanisms.

Possible Alternatives
Several alternatives for addressing the issue of subsistence hunting of migratory birds are presented below:

1. Maintain the Status Quo
   In this "no action" alternative, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would not pursue an amendment to the 1916 convention. Although a protocol to amend the 1916 convention was negotiated and signed by of ficials of Canada and the U.S. in 1979, it has not been ratified for reasons discussed above. Under the status quo alternative, no effort would be made to revive the protocol.

2. Develop Cooperative Agreements for
   Migratory Bird Management In Alaska
   This alternative is related to alternative l, but differs in that cooperative agreements similar to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Goose Management Plan would be pursued more actively. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would seek to develop such agreements in areas where serious resource problems existed and where the parties involved concurred that management actions to address them were necessary. The numbers of hunters and harvest levels could be similar to alternative number 1, but the ability to monitor and manage harvest levels would be improved.

3. Enforce the Closed Season
   Under this alternative, management agencies would seek to eliminate hunting during the closed season and bring subsistence hunting practices into conformation with the 1916 convention. The taking of scoters by Indians and certain seabirds by Eskimos and Indians would continue to be legal. However, the bulk of the harvest of migratory birds during the closed season is made up of other species; primarily ducks and geese.

   The adverse social and cultural impacts on rural residents and the economic impacts on individuals and communities are difficult to quantify but would be substantial.

4. Amend the 1916 Convention to Allow
   Regulated Subsistence Hunting
   This alternative would establish a legal basis under which qualified users would be allowed to hunt migratory birds during the period March 10 to September 1. The Secretary of the Interior would establish the seasons when hunting could occur, along with such other regulations that the Secretary determined were needed in order to provide for the preservation and maintenance of the stocks subject to hunting. Amending the 1916 Convention would similarly provide Canada a basis for permitting and regulating a subsistence harvest of migratory birds.

5. Enact Domestic Legislation
   In the event that the U.S. and Canada cannot agree on an amendment to the 1916 Convention, the U.S. Congress could resolve the issue with legislation.

   The U.S. Congress has already indicated its desire that subsistence hunting of migratory birds in Alaska be handled in accordance with a later 1976 US-USSR Treaty. The 1978 Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act gives the Secretary of the Interior authority to implement the subsistence hunting provisions of the US-USSR Treaty. However, it also requires the Secretary to do this in conformance with the other migratory bird treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory. It appears to have been assumed in 1978 that this could be done in a timely fashion, but efforts to accomplish this have not been successful.

How Hunting Would be Regulated
Nothing in an amendment to the convention or legislation would grant entitlement, rights, or preference over any uses of migratory birds in the U.S. A management system would be established to allow for coordination among user groups; state, provincial, and federal wildlife agencies; and the flyway councils. Seasons, bag limits, species restrictions, harvest quotas, management units and zones, means of transportation, and methods of taking are commonly used in regulating the harvest of migratory birds and would be used, as appropriate, in regulating subsistence harvests under the amendment.

Next Steps
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is completing a draft environmental assessment around the five possible alternatives mentioned earlier. This document will be released to the public in the summer of 1993. Following public comment on the draft alternative, a final environmental assessment will be published discussing the proposed action. Formal negotiations between Canada and the U.S. may then begin. If a legal basis for subsistence hunting during the current closed season is established, an in-depth regulatory process will follow to develop specific regulations to implement the hunt. This will involve extensive public involvement and provide continuing opportunity for public participation.

Tom Dwyer is the Deputy Assistant Director for Refuges and Wildlife of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Much of the material in this article is from a joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/State of Alaska discussion paper.