OCR Text |
Show ing hunters and fishermen in a manner that is consistent with the goals that are established. We are convinced that this matter has developed into a major controversy because of the present lack of clear and meaningful goals in Federal law (which we recommend later in this chapter) for the management of public lands for fish and wildlife purposes. Consequently, we recommend that the states generally should continue to exercise their traditional authority to license the taking and transport of game and to set season and bag limits. But we recommend also that the Federal agencies should be given clear authority, subject to fullest consultation with the state and careful consideration of the state's viewpoint, to carry out the following actions, even when inconsistent with state regulations, where it is necessary to accomplish clearly authorized land management objectives: 1. The establishment of more restrictive harvest regulations applicable to public lands, in order to prevent depletion of fish and wildlife on Federal lands or to prevent disturbances of species that are not being hunted. 2. The regulation of the location, time, and duration of entry and use of the public lands by hunters and fishermen, in order to protect public land resources and the interests of other users, to control hunter density and dispersions in the interests of safety, and to direct harvest pressures where they are most needed. 3. The modification of public land fish and wildlife habitat either for the benefit of fish and wildlife or, where necessary, for other multiple use land management responsibilities. 4. The determination and manipulation of populations and species to be produced on the public lands where significant impacts on the ecosystem are involved. 5. The harvesting of fish and wildlife where necessary to protect public land resources and values or the future food supply of the animals themselves. Federal-State Cooperative Agreements Recommendation 61: Formal statewide cooperative agreements should be used to coordinate public land fish and wildlife programs with the states. In Chapter Three on planning, we stress the need for greater coordination with state and local governments. Our study indicates that there already exists a comparatively high degree of coordination with respect to fish and wildlife matters. But we believe that this coordination needs to be regularized and made uniform, and that close working relationships should be developed to implement the greater emphasis that we recommend for fish and wildlife management programs on the public lands. At present there are at the local level numerous cooperative arrangements, both formal and informal, between the states and the public land agencies. But these arrangements generally require the states to work separately with each agency, or with less than all of them that should be involved, even when a joint Federal effort is arranged. We suggest that a Federal-state fish and resident wildlife coordinating committee be established in each state, composed of members from all public land agencies and representatives of the Governor or The licensing of hunters by states is a tradition that should be continued. interested state agencies. Functions of the committee would include: (1) Coordination of habitat and population planning, including the identification, designation, and management of important wildlife habitat support areas. (2) Development of plans and proposals recommending special seasons and supervised hunts on Federal lands to achieve production goals and protect public land resources. (3) Development and recommendation of uniform standards for wildlife habitat classification, evaluation, and carrying capacity determination. 159 |