DOCSLIB.ORG

Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region September 2007 COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN CATAHOULA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LASALLE AND CATAHOULA PARISHES, LOUISIANA U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia September 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1 I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 3 Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 3 National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4 Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 5 National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5 North American Bird Conservation Initiative .......................................................................5 North American Waterfowl Management Plan ....................................................................6 Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan ...........................................................................6 U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan ......................................................................................6 Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan ...............................................................6 U.S. Woodcock Plan ...........................................................................................................6 Relationship To State Wildlife Agency ..........................................................................................7 II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 9 Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9 Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 13 Oil and Gas Activities ........................................................................................................ 13 Partnerships ...................................................................................................................... 13 Globally Important Bird Area .............................................................................................16 Ramsar Designation of Catahoula Lake ...........................................................................16 Ecosystem Context .....................................................................................................................17 Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..............................................................................17 Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 20 Forest Loss and Fragmentation ........................................................................................21 Alterations to Hydrology ....................................................................................................23 Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................................23 Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants .............................................................................23 Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 24 Climate .............................................................................................................................. 24 Geology and Topography ..................................................................................................24 Soils .................................................................................................................................. 24 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 25 Air Quality ..........................................................................................................................25 Water Quality and Quantity ...............................................................................................27 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 27 Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 27 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 34 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 39 Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 41 Refuge Administration and Management ...................................................................................42 Land Protection and Conservation ....................................................................................42 Table of Contents i Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 42 Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance......................................................................... 46 III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 49 Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 49 Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ...................................................................... 49 Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 51 Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 52 Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 53 Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 54 Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 55 IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 57 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 57 Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 59 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 59 Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 62 Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 72 Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 74 Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 80 Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 83 V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 87 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 87 Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 87 Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 87 Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 88 Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 89 Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 90 Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 91 Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 92 Volunteers .................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Waterfowl Rely on Catahoula Lake in Central Louisiana Enforcement of New Clean Water Rule Still Unclear for Farmers
    New Sorghum Pest Youth Wetlands Program Water and Food Safety page 12 page 20 page 26 Vol. 58, No. 3, Summer 2015 Waterfowl rely on Catahoula Lake in central Louisiana Enforcement of new Clean Water Rule still unclear for farmers Olivia McClure EDITORIAL BOARD: John S. Russin, Chairman Although a rule that revises which bodies of water are subject to Clean Water Linda Foster Benedict Act regulations has taken effect, the agricultural community continues to be Michael Blazier Rick Bogren concerned about how strict federal scrutiny will be. Melissa Cater Agricultural water has always been Glen T. Gentry exempt from Clean Water Act regulations, Kurt M. Guidry but the new Clean Water Rule incorporates Dustin Harrell Claudia Husseneder several types of water that were never reg- Kathy Kramer ulated before and are common on farms. Megan La Peyre Tributaries and waterways adjacent or connected to a previously jurisdictional EDITOR: Linda Foster Benedict waterway must now comply with the Clean ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Rick Bogren Water Act, said LSU AgCenter economist DESIGNER: Kathy Kramer Naveen Adusumilli. Drainage ditches and PHOTO EDITOR: John Wozniak CONTRIBUTORS: Tobie Blanchard, Craig irrigation runoff, for example, are not Gautreaux, Randy LaBauve, Elma Sue specifically regulated by the act but drain McCallum, Olivia McClure and Bruce Schultz into those that are. WEB DESIGN: Ronda Clark and Kathy Kramer “Can farmers dig a ditch now, and how Louisiana Agriculture is published quarterly by will it be regulated? It is unclear right now,” the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station. Subscriptions are free. You may also subscribe Adusumilli said. to a Web version of the magazine, which is The changes are spelled out in the available at www.LSUAgCenter.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishery Circular
    Marine B Ul fa K-i A R S NOV 81965 WOODS HOLE, MASS. Wildlife Research Problems Programs Progress UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FI^HKRIES AND WILDLIFE Circular 220 ri<w The Department of the Interior, created in 1849, is a Department of Conservation, concerned with management, conservation, and development of the Nation's water, wildlife, fish, mineral, forest, and park and recrea- tional resources. It has major responsibilities also for Indian eind Terri- torial affairs. As America's principal conservation agency, the Department works to assure that nonrenewable resources are developed and used wisely, that park and recreational resources are conserved for the future, and that renewable resources make their full contribution to the progress, prosperity, and security of the United States, now and in the future. Front cover photo by C. Eugene Knoder Aleutian Canada Geese from Buldir Island held in captivity on the Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Vignettes by Alfred J. Godin Back cover photos Top, Wayne W. Sandfort Bottom, Lee E. Yeager WILDLIFE RESEARCH PROBLEMS PROGRAMS PROGRESS 1964 Activities in the Division of Wildlife Research of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife for the Calendar Year 1964 "Our renewable resources nill be renewed only if we understand their requirements and plan it that way." DuRWARD L. Allen W'iUIlife Legacy, p. 526 Circular 220 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Stewart L. Udall, Secretary Stanley A. Cain, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Clarence F. Pautzke, Commissioner BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE John S.
    [Show full text]
  • Page: 1 Great Oak Auctions & Decoys Unlimited Inc. Lot# Description 1 2
    Great Oak Auctions & Decoys Unlimited Inc. Page: 1 Lot# Description 1 Pair of Black Ducks by Charles Moore Pair of Black Ducks by Charles Moore. One sleeper and one upright. One pictured. 200.00 - 400.00 2 Pair of Teal Decoys by Moore Pair of Teal Decoys by Moore in original paint and good condition. 200.00 - 300.00 3 Lot of 2 Racy Merganser Hen Decoys 2 Merganser Hen Decoys by John Mulak, with nicely carved crests and original paint. 1pictured. 100.00 - 200.00 4 Gadwal Drake by Lou Reineiri Gadwal Drake by noted folk artist Lou Reineiri. Original paint and condition. 100.00 - 200.00 5 No Lot 5a Swimming Merganser Drake Decoy by Nolan Swimming Merganser Drake Decoy by J.J. Nolan, dated 1985. 100.00 - 200.00 5b Perky Bufflehead Drake Decoy by Bob Berry Bufflehead Drake Decoy by Bob Berry Signed and dated 1985, in original paint with attached keel. 75.00 - 125.00 6 Wood Duck Drake Decoy by Herter Factory Wood Duck Drake By the Herter Factory, Waseca, MN in original condition. 100.00 - 200.00 Great Oak Auctions & Decoys Unlimited Inc. Page: 2 Lot# Description 6a Lot of 2. Sperry Black Duck and Mason Mallard Hen Lot of 2 decoys. Sperry Factory Black Duck, CT, and a Mason Factory Standard Grade Mallard Hen. 25.00 - 50.00 7 Carving of a Running Avocet Carving of an Avocet mounted on a wooden stand. Original paint and condition. 50.00 - 100.00 8 Lot of 2. A Golden Plover and Black Bellied Plover Carvings of a golden plover and a black bellied plover mounted on wooden stick bases.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterfowl Management in Georgia
    WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT IN GEORGIA PREFACE & ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Wildlife biologists serving on the Georgia Department of Natural Resources' Waterfowl Committee prepared the information found here. It is intended to serve as a source of general information for those with a casual interest in waterfowl. It also serves as a more detailed guide for landowners and managers who want to improve the waterfowl habitat on their property. The committee hopes this information will serve to benefit the waterfowl resource in Georgia and help to ensure its well- being for generations to come. Land management assistance is available from Wildlife Resources Division biologists. For additional help, contact the nearest Game Management Section office. Game Management Offices Region I Armuchee (706) 295-6041 Region II Gainesville (770) 535-5700 Region III Thomson (706) 595-4222 Region III Thomson (Augusta) (706) 667-4672 Region IV Fort Valley (478) 825-6354 Region V Albany (229) 430-4254 Region VI Fitzgerald (229) 426-5267 Region VII Brunswick (912) 262-3173 * Headquarters (770) 918-6416 We would like to express our appreciation to Carroll Allen and Dan Forster of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources for providing editorial comments. AUTHORS: Greg Balkcom, Senior Wildlife Biologist Ted Touchstone, Wildlife Biologist Kent Kammermeyer, Senior Wildlife Biologist Vic Vansant, Regional Wildlife Supervisor Carmen Martin, Wildlife Biologist Mike Van Brackle, Wildlife Biologist George Steele, Wildlife Biologist John Bowers, Senior Wildlife Biologist The Department of Natural Resources is an equal opportunity employer and offers all persons the opportunity to compete and participate in areas of employment regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, handicap, or other non-merit factors.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterfowl in Iowa, Overview
    STATE OF IOWA 1977 WATERFOWL IN IOWA By JACK W MUSGROVE Director DIVISION OF MUSEUM AND ARCHIVES STATE HISTORICAL DEPARTMENT and MARY R MUSGROVE Illustrated by MAYNARD F REECE Printed for STATE CONSERVATION COMMISSION DES MOINES, IOWA Copyright 1943 Copyright 1947 Copyright 1953 Copyright 1961 Copyright 1977 Published by the STATE OF IOWA Des Moines Fifth Edition FOREWORD Since the origin of man the migratory flight of waterfowl has fired his imagination. Undoubtedly the hungry caveman, as he watched wave after wave of ducks and geese pass overhead, felt a thrill, and his dull brain questioned, “Whither and why?” The same age - old attraction each spring and fall turns thousands of faces skyward when flocks of Canada geese fly over. In historic times Iowa was the nesting ground of countless flocks of ducks, geese, and swans. Much of the marshland that was their home has been tiled and has disappeared under the corn planter. However, this state is still the summer home of many species, and restoration of various areas is annually increasing the number. Iowa is more important as a cafeteria for the ducks on their semiannual flights than as a nesting ground, and multitudes of them stop in this state to feed and grow fat on waste grain. The interest in waterfowl may be observed each spring during the blue and snow goose flight along the Missouri River, where thousands of spectators gather to watch the flight. There are many bird study clubs in the state with large memberships, as well as hundreds of unaffiliated ornithologists who spend much of their leisure time observing birds.
    [Show full text]
  • Ward World Championship Wildfowl Carving Competition 2008 Results
    WARD WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP WILDFOWL CARVING COMPETITION 2008 RESULTS WORLD LEVEL Division A - Decorative Lifesize Wildfowl 1. Eared Grebe Pair by Todd Wohlt, Appleton, WI, USA 2. Owl Family by Gary Eigenbergger, Green Bay, WI, USA 3. Rufous Tailed Jacamar Pair by Thomas Horn, Emmons, PA, USA Division B - Floating Decorative Lifesize Waterfowl Pair – Bufflehead Pair 1. Pat Godin, Paris, Ontario, Canada 2. Sebastien Bougie, Pointe des Cascades, Quebec, Canada 3. Barry Woodcraft, London, England Division C - Decorative Miniature Wildfowl 1. Spangled Cotinga by Todd Wohlt, Appleton, WI, USA 2. Black Duck Pair by Marc Schultz, Denmark, WI, USA 3. Golden Eagle by Gary Eigenberger, Green Bay, WI, USA Division D - Interpretive Wood Sculpture 1. Nuthatch by Fausto Delgrosso, Fairfield, PA, USA 2. Red Red Robin by John Sharp, Kent, OH, USA 3. Hummingbirds Defending Nest by Jay Goldstein, Allentown, PA, USA Division SR - Shootin' Rig 1. Red-Breasted Mergansers by Rich Smoker, Marion, MD, USA 2. Gadwalls by Tom Christie, Lincoln, NE, USA 3. Ross's Goose by Ivie Elliott, Elizabeth City, NC, USA MASTERS LEVEL Floating Decorative Lifesize Waterfowl (ME) 1. Richard Reeves 2. Lionel Dwyer 3. James Welsh ME1 - Marsh Ducks ME2 - Diving Ducks ME3 - Geese & Confidence 1. Richard Reeves 1. Lionel Dwyer 1. Eric Kaiser 2. William Browne III 2. James Welsh 2. Carl Danos 3. William Browne III 3. Lionel Dwyer 3. none Decorative Lifesize Wildfowl (MF) 1. Todd Wohlt 2. Gary Eigenberger 3. Gary Eigenberger MF1 - Waterfowl, MF2 - Upland Game Birds MF3 - All Songbirds Shorebirds, Wading Birds & Birds of Prey 1. Todd Wohlt & Seabirds 1.
    [Show full text]
  • AEP's 2017 GRI Report
    For more information contact: Sandy Nessing Managing Director Corporate Sustainability American Electric Power [email protected] Melissa Tominack Sr. Sustainability Coordinator American Electric Power [email protected] 2 American Electric Power –2017 GRI Report 2017 Global Reporting Initiative AEP follows the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G4 reporting principles in terms of data quality, report content and organizational boundaries. This report was developed according to the fourth generation of GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, otherwise known as G4, in accordance with a core adherence level. The GRI guidelines provide a voluntary reporting framework used by organizations around the world as the basis for sustainability reporting. We also responded using the Electric Utility Sector Supplement for reporting on industry-specific information. G4 Description Report Location Indicator Strategy and Analysis Message from the G4-1 Statement from the most senior decision-maker Chairman 2016 Form 10-K Risk Factors pg. 33 G4-2 Description of key impacts, risks, and opportunities Managing Risk Carbon Profile Analysis Strategy for Growth Organizational Profile G4-3 Name of the organization See homepage G4-4 Primary brands, products, and/or services About Us Columbus, OH G4-5 Location of organization’s headquarters About Us G4-6 Countries in which the company has operations About Us G4-7 Nature of ownership and legal form 2016 Form 10-K pg. 1 G4-8 Markets served 2016 Form 10-K pg. 1 G4-9 Scale of the reporting organization About AEP 17,634 (see appendix G4-10 Total number of employees by employment contract & gender 1) G4-11 Total employees covered by collective bargaining agreements Labor Relations Significant changes in organizations size, structure, ownership, or its G4-13 2016 Form 10-K pg.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
    NATIONAL WETLANDS NEWSLETTER, vol. 29, no. 2. Copyright © 2007 Environmental Law Institute.® Washington D.C., USA.Reprinted by permission of the National Wetlands Newsletter. To subscribe, call 800-433-5120, write [email protected], or visit http://www.eli.org/nww. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: Assessment of International Designations Within the United States The Ramsar Convention is an international framework used to protect wetlands. At this time, the United States has 22 designated sites listed as wetlands of international importance. In this Article, the authors analyze survey data collected from each of these 22 sites to determine whether and how Ramsar designation benefits these wetland areas. BY ROYAL C. GARDNER AND KIM DIANA CONNOLLY ssues related to wetlands and wetland protection often involve engage in international cooperation.6 Its nonregulatory approach boundaries. Sometimes the lines are drawn on the ground, has led some to ask what benefits are associated with Ramsar des- delineating between so-called “jurisdictional” wetlands and ignation. For example, the United States has a maze of federal, uplands. Sometimes the boundaries are conceptual: trying state, and local laws that protect wetlands, so does the international Ito determine the proper relationship between the federal and state recognition of a site provide any additional returns? To answer governments with respect to wetland permits, or trying to balance this question, we surveyed all 22 U.S. Ramsar sites.7 Although the the need to protect the aquatic environment without inappropri- results varied from site to site, we found that Ramsar designation ately limiting activities on private property. Other times interna- adds some value to all sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 114/Thursday, June 13, 2002/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Notices 40735 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Dated: June 7, 2002. pages of comments from numerous Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: Art Payne, commenters, including the parties 202–564–3261; facsimile: 202–565– Acting Director, National Center for requesting more time. EPA believes that 0050; e-mail: [email protected]. Environmental Assessment. it has appropriately responded to the [FR Doc. 02–14993 Filed 6–12–02; 8:45 am] comments received. Furthermore, EPA SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BILLING CODE 6560–50–P is establishing these TMDLs pursuant to Foundation for Global Action on deadlines established in a consent Persistent Organic Pollutants: A United decree in the case styled Sierra Club, et States Perspective, developed by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION al. v. Clifford et al., No. 96–0527, (E.D. scientists from EPA, other federal and AGENCY La.) which does not at this late date state agencies, and the academic permit EPA to grant additional time for [FRL–7227–3] community, is a technical support public comment, absent relief from the document aimed at informing decision Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Final court, which the Agency does not makers, general academia, and the Agency Action on 98 Total Maximum believe is necessary to seek here. public on the scientific foundation and Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Final Agency However, EPA will continue to accept relevance to the United States of the Action on 20 Determinations That information submitted regarding Stockholm Convention on Persistent TMDLs Are Not Needed potential errors in the TMDL, and/or to Organic Pollutants (POPs).
    [Show full text]
  • Point Source Implementation Strategy for Nutrients in the Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (LPDES) Program
    Point Source Implementation Strategy for Nutrients in the Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (LPDES) Program In Support of the Louisiana Nutrient Management Strategy Strategic Action 9.d. Monitor nutrients in point sources Water Permits Division Office of Environmental Services Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality August 3, 2016 Point Source Implementation Strategy for Nutrients Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality August 3, 2016 Table of Contents 1. Overview of Nutrient Monitoring in the LPDES Program ...................................................... 3 2. Enhanced Nutrient Monitoring Approach ............................................................................... 4 3. Language for Permit Fact Sheet/Statement of Basis ............................................................... 6 4. Laboratory Costs of Nutrient Monitoring ................................................................................ 8 5. Summary .................................................................................................................................. 8 6. References ............................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix A – Nutrient Monitoring in Permits Resulting From Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin ................................................................................... 10 Appendix B – Nutrient Monitoring in Point Source Wetland Assimilation Projects ..................
    [Show full text]
  • Element Transport in a River-Lake Continuum Across Forest- Dominated Landscapes: a Case Study in Central Louisiana
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School March 2020 Element Transport in A River-lake Continuum across Forest- dominated Landscapes: A Case Study in Central Louisiana Zhen Xu Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Environmental Monitoring Commons, Geochemistry Commons, and the Hydrology Commons Recommended Citation Xu, Zhen, "Element Transport in A River-lake Continuum across Forest-dominated Landscapes: A Case Study in Central Louisiana" (2020). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 5181. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/5181 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. ELEMENT TRANSPORT IN A RIVER-LAKE CONTINUUM ACROSS FOREST-DOMINATED LANDSCAPES: A CASE STUDY IN CENTRAL LOUISIANA A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The School of Renewable Natural Resources by Zhen Xu B.S., College of Idaho, 2012 M.S., Louisiana State University, 2014 May 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank everyone who helped and supported me on this lifetime achievement. First and foremost, thank you to my major advisor, Dr. Yi-Jun Xu, whose training set the foundation for this achievement. You let me swim upriver on my own, yet were always willing to pull me out of unhappy waters when I floundered.
    [Show full text]
  • 50660 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations
    50660 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 6 supplement also provided detailed 1996±97 late-season frameworks. For information on the 1997±98 regulatory those topics where a Council Fish and Wildlife Service schedule and announced the Service recommendation is not shown, the Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Council supported continuing the same 50 CFR Part 20 and Flyway Council meetings. On June frameworks as in 1996±97. RIN 1018-AE14 27, 1997, the Service held a public hearing in Washington, DC, as General Migratory Bird Hunting; Final announced in the March 13 and June 6 Written Comments: The Humane Frameworks for Late-Season Migratory Federal Registers to review the status of Society of the United States (Humane Bird Hunting Regulations migratory shore and upland game birds. Society) expressed concern that the The Service discussed hunting public was not well represented in the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, regulations for these species and for regulations-development process and Interior. other early seasons. On July 23, 1997, requested establishment of a system ACTION: Final rule. the Service published in the Federal directly involving the non-hunting Register (62 FR 39712) a third public. In addition, they recommended SUMMARY: This rule prescribes final late- document. This document contained the that the Service undertake efforts to season frameworks from which States final regulatory alternatives for the obtain population estimates for all may select season dates, limits, and 1997±98 duck hunting season and the hunted species. Finally, they other options for the 1997±98 migratory proposed early-season frameworks for recommended pre-sunrise shooting be bird hunting season.
    [Show full text]