Statement of Scope
Department of Natural Resources
Relating to: | Furbearer registration and tagging simplification, amending Ch. NR 8 &10, Wis. Admin. Code |
1. Finding/nature of emergency (Emergency Rule only):
These will be permanent rules.
2. Detailed description of the objective of the proposed rule:
Harvest of certain furbearer species has historically been closely monitored using a limited draw permit and tag system. This proposal will investigate the feasibility of eliminating pelt tags for certain furbearer species. It would also simplify registration and reporting requirements and adjust forms of proof needed for certain furbearer species.
Additional rule changes may be pursued which are reasonably related to those discussed here.
These rules may make additional updates such as correcting cross-reference citations, updating road names on maps, changes needed in order to update application forms, or revisions which are necessary for consistency with recently enacted legislation.
3. Description of the existing policies relevant to the rule, new policies proposed to be included in the rule, and an analysis of policy alternatives:
Bobcat, fisher and otter distribution has increased considerably since the initial tagging and registration requirements were first put in place by the department. Likewise, the range of many furbearer species has increased substantially since these regulations went into effect.
Current rules require individuals who harvest certain furbearer species to report the harvest within twenty-four hours. This reporting is typically done either online or over the phone. This proposal will explore changing the reporting requirements so that they are consistent with other species.
Currently, individuals who harvest certain furbearer species must also register the animal in person. The department often requires successful furbearer harvesters to separate the pelt from the carcass and tag both the pelt and the carcass. In order to register these species, the individual must meet with a representative of the department within seven days after month of harvest to register the animal and submit the carcass to the department to use for population modeling. In order to meet this registration requirement requires finding time for both the harvester and approved department employee to meet in-person to register the animal and tag the pelt. This sometimes requires both the department representative and the harvester to travel a considerable distance in order to meet to register the animal. A number of harvesters are increasingly interested in retaining portions of the carcass for personal use.
This proposal will explore simplifying the registration process by removing the in-person registration requirement for certain furbearer species. It will also investigate requiring fewer instances where a pelt and/or carcass tag would be required because fewer individuals would be required to submit a full carcass. Also, other individuals may be required to submit only a part of a carcass rather than the entire carcass. Successful harvesters will still be required to report their harvest.
4. Detailed explanation of statutory authority for the rule (including the statutory citation and language):
The chapter on wild animals and plants, in s. 29.014, “rule making for this chapter”, establishes that the department shall maintain open and closed seasons for fish and game and any limits, rest days, and conditions for taking fish and game. This grant of rule-making authority allows the department to make changes related to trapping and hunting regulations. Also, s. 23.47 (1) grants the department the authority to designate, by rule, forms of acceptable proof of hunting and trapping licenses. 5. Estimate of amount of time that state employees will spend developing the rule and of other resources necessary to develop the rule:
Approximately 120 hours will be needed by the department prior to and following the hearings
6. List with description of all entities that may be affected by the proposed rule:
Trappers and hunters who pursue furbearing animals are the principal groups that will be affected by this rulemaking.
7. Summary and preliminary comparison with any existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the proposed rule:
States possess inherent authority to manage the wildlife resources located within their boundaries, except insofar as preempted by federal treaties and laws, including regulations established in the Federal Register. None of these rule changes violate or conflict with the provisions established in the Federal Code of Regulations.
8. Anticipated economic impact of implementing the rule (note if the rule is likely to have an economic impact on small businesses):
Based on our preliminary analysis, we do not anticipate an economic impact to individuals or groups. If there were to be any economic impact resulting from this rule, we anticipate that it would be very minimal. These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small business, nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule.
9. Anticipated number, month and locations of public hearings:
The Department anticipates holding four public hearings in the month of August 2020. Hearing cities will be determined.
