Unless the National Park Service reverses itself, one day it might be legal for hunters to kill grizzly bears in some areas of Grand Teton National Park/Deby Dixon file photo
Concerned that the proposed delisting of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem could soon be followed by a grizzly pelt being hauled out of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming, two conservation groups have sued the National Park Service in a bid to force the agency to take back its authority to manage wildlife on all lands within the park's boundaries.
By deciding in 2014 that the state of Wyoming could manage wildlife on some 2,300 acres of privately- or state-owned lands located inside the park's borders, the Park Service opened up the possibility that hunters could pursue wildlife such as wolves, moose, bison, elk, and possibly grizzlies if they are eventually delisted on those acres, and that trappers could go after beavers.
On Wednesday the National Parks Conservation Association and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition filed a lawsuit in a bid to reverse that decision.
“We are committed to ensuring Grand Teton National Park’s remarkable wildlife is managed consistently throughout the park and with the highest level of protection possible, which park visitors expect,” said Sharon Mader, NPCA's Grand Teton program manager. “For more than 65 years, the National Park Service rightfully and lawfully exercised authority to protect all park wildlife. It should continue to do so moving forward.”
Many inholdings, or land not owned by the Park Service, within Grand Teton National Park are near places that are enjoyed by the park’s 2.8 million annual visitors, the two groups said in a release. A large number of visitors come to see the park’s wildlife.
"But under the Park Service’s decision, bison, moose, coyote, beaver, elk, and potentially in the future, grizzly bears that wander onto such inholdings could be shot and killed under Wyoming law," the release went on. "Park visitors’ experience will also be negatively impacted by the sights and sounds of such activity. Since the Park Service’s decision, a number of the park’s iconic bison have been killed by private hunters under state law within the park’s boundary."
At the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Executive Director Caroline Byrd sounded almost flummoxed by the Park Service's decision.
“We find ourselves taking the National Park Service to court to force the Park Service to maintain Park Service authority over Park Service resources,” she said. “After trying for months to convince them to reassert their long held authority over park inholdings, we were left with no choice but to go to court.”
While it's currently illegal to hunt grizzly bears due to their protection under the Endangered Species Act, if they are delisted as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing, Wyoming could establish a hunting season for the bruins and could possibly even allow "baiting" of the bears to draw them to certain areas for hunters, as is allowed in some parts of the state during the black bear hunting season.
The Greater Yellowstone Coalition and National Parks Conservation Association argue that the Park Service’s decision to turn wildlife management on inholdings over to the state violates federal law. The Park Service, which has the legal authority to prohibit hunting anywhere within the boundary of the park, has the responsibility under its governing statutes to exercise that authority to protect the park’s wildlife, the groups maintain.
"NPS's abdication of its responsibility and authority to control or prevent the killing of park wildlife on inholdings was contrary to law because federal law prohibiting anyone from harming park wildlife does apply on inholdings in Grand Teton," a section of the lawsuit states. "Furthermore, in determining incorrectly that federal law does apply, NPS acted arbitrarily and capriciously, including by failing to consider all relevant facts."
According to the lawsuit, the Park Service changed its position regarding who had authority to manage wildlife on inholdings within Grand Teton after a wolf was killed on private land inside the park. In 2015, the lawsuit added, the Park Service agreed with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department that bison could be hunted on private lands inside Grand Teton. A similar agreement later was reached regarding elk hunting on the Pinto Ranch, a 450-acre spread within park boundaries, the lawsuit claims.
Those decisions were flawed and unnecessary, the groups claim, because in 1950 when the park's enabled legislation was passed by Congress, "the federal government and the state government had agreed that federal law applied to prohibit killing wildlife on Grand Teton inholdings as well as on federally owned park land."
The one compromise was that "public hunters were allowed to shoot elk in the park under a program under which the state would play an unprecedented role concerning hunting in a national park. Specifically, an advisory committee would be set up to develop annual and long-term plans for 'control' of the elk herd. The committee's recommendations would be submitted to the Interior Secretary and (Wyoming Game and Fish Department), which would have the responsibility to issue orders and regulations to implement the hunt recommended by the committee."
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
And I see nothing necesarily in conflict between hunting and the NPS mission. If there is a conflict in a certain situation, it should be banned. If their is no conflict, it shouldn't.
BTW where are the citations for the laws and Constitutional powers that give the NPS jurisdiction over private lands. You are great at calling names and casting aspertions but very short on providing the facts.
Of course you don't because you've never invested any time, effort or thought into what it means. You have no skin in the game other than your misguided self trolling a national park site for years on end. You're a realtor with little comprehension of what a National Park is about. You probably just look at the land as something that should be carved up and sold, because it would be valuable to your clients. It's evident the longer you are on this site, you are just here to anger and stir up people, because you seem to get a rise off of it. Either that, or you are a paid troll. What a very sad life you must lead. I try not to fall into your trap, but I did today. Why Kurt allows you to ruin this site, is beyond me.
National Parks are wildlife sanctuaries. The mission is clear on that. Killing the largest, biggest animals for trophy hunting defeats the mission of a sanctuary.
And I suppose the missionary statement to that effect is in the same place as the laws and Constitional powers that give NPS jurisdiction over private land. - i.e. nowhere.
Once again, you have the reading comprehension of a shrimp. I can't help you interpret the national park service organic act, 16 U.S.C.1. It's evident the school systems you attended failed you, so I can't help you further along. I'm just spinning my wheels here and this is now hit a level of pointlessness.
No, you can try to insult people but you can't provide the facts. Show me the language in 16 U.S.C.1 that says hunting is contrary to the mission. Show me the language in 16 U.S.C.1 that give the NPS jurisdiction over private lands. It isn't there which is why you pursue the avenue of personal insults rather than civil discussion.
EC, you're a gem (I will not say shrimp). Yes, wildlife generally falls under state law, but there are federal laws, as well. Tell you what. Go out and shoot an eagle and see what government takes your head off. Then there is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Certainly you have heard of that. And the Endangered Species Act, but yes, President Obama ignores that, too. Got to have those wind farms saving us from global warming. . .
We're saving nothing here but our selfishness and refusal to face the facts. Our national parks are not personal playthings just because we want to play. But yes, EC, you are an important reminder of why even the Park Service ignores the law. It is easier to cave than to protect, and when someone powerful is asking you to cave, your government career may be on the line.
The National Park Service can only protect what the people want protected. Only when the people tell Congress and the lobbyists to back off do we get the kind of protection we deserve. You know me. I am all for any method--even privatizing services--if that will really help us protect the parks. But straining credibility is not a method. It is not credible when you say that "if [something] is not detrimental, why ban it." Because taste figures in the equation, too. A prostitute ring working Jackson Lake Lodge would not in and of itself be detrimental. But I still think we would want to ban it inside a national park.
I think there are tasteful ways to hunt, and I believe all of my friends to be tasteful hunters. None has ever wanted to hunt in Jackson Hole. Similar to the trademark issue in Yosemite, this only proves how selfish some people are. Like the two bicyclists today who ran a stop sign in front of me, selfish people expect us to apply the brakes. Next time they might not be so lucky. That is what happens when you push good taste.
Guys. He's TEFLON. Nothing sticks. He has the same rejoinders, the same chinese-finger-trap conversations, for years, and he's getting a lot of us all stirred up. Before i retired I could have pointed at the page in DSM but I plan on staying retired. The past couple of days he has had a bunch more spare time on his hands and pops up like a whack-a-mole game, to no end result other than his satisfaction.
Walk away. The month after my house burned down this winter followed a few days later by major surgery, I glanced in here occasionally and avoided raising my blood pressure by engaging. It was good. Ignore him. He gets just enough of a hook into you to make you want to snap back - let it go.
Alfred, I am listening to the "old professor", nice posts, thanks.