Editor's note: The following column was written by Kent Nelson, executive director of Wyoming Wildlife Advocates.
In November 2014, in a stunning, out-of-the-blue reversal of decades of settled policy, the National Park Service ceded to Wyoming authority over wildlife on approximately 2,300 acres of state- and privately-owned "inholdings" within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park.
At the time, several organizations, including the National Parks Conservation Association and Wyoming Wildlife Advocates (the organization which I represent), criticized this decision, declaring that it opened the door to hunting and trapping within the borders of one of the Park Service’s crown jewels.
If this herd of bison walks across inholdings within Grand Teton National Park, it could be hunted/Deby Dixon
And in fact, this quickly came to pass. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department, responsible for managing Wyoming's wildlife, almost immediately authorized hunting of elk and bison on park inholdings. Last fall three bison were taken by hunters on inholdings within the boundaries of the park.
Then, in 2015, WGFD redrew hunt areas for several species, and authorized hunting for moose and blue grouse on inholdings. Black bear hunting was also allowed.
The WGFD manages a wide array of species, most notably the big game species, but it also has authority to manage hunting and/or trapping of fur bearing animals and game birds.
The NPS decision enables the WGFD to authorize hunting or trapping on park inholdings of any, or all, of the species under its control.
That includes moose, deer, elk, cougars, black bear, bobcat, bighorn sheep, antelope, beaver, badger, marten, mink, muskrats, rabbits and snowshoe hares, squirrels, sandhill cranes, grouse, partridge, any migratory bird not protected under federal law, and more.
Also as a consequence of the NPS decision, certain other wildlife, including red foxes, coyotes, raccoons and porcupines, may be killed in unlimited numbers at any time by any lawful means on park inholdings.
Most appalling of all, WGFD will have the authority to allow hunting of grizzly bears and gray wolves on inholdings once their Endangered Species Act protections are removed.
So why then was this decision made and how can it be justified? After all, the laws regulations seem clear.
Under the Organic Act of 1916 the “primary responsibility” of the National Park Service is to “leave park resources and values unimpaired unless a particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise.”
In furtherance of this objective, Congress has reserved to itself the exclusive authority to make exceptions to the statutory mandate to preserve park resources.
The NPS itself has explicitly acknowledged this by stating in its Management Policies that “impairment of park resources and values may not be allowed by the Service unless directly and specifically provided for by legislation or by the proclamation establishing the park.”
And while Park Service regulations generally “do not apply on non-federally owned land and waters or on Indian tribal trust lands within National Park System boundaries,” specified regulations, including wildlife protection regulations, do clearly apply “regardless of land ownership, on all lands and waters within a park area that are under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States.”
The irony of this situation is heartbreaking: in Grand Teton National Park, known worldwide as a haven for wildlife, wildlife that people from around the world come to see might well be hunted. Some species already are being hunted within park boundaries.
This gives rise to the uncomfortable prospect that visitors who come to view our abundant wildlife will instead witness it being killed, quickly by a hunter's bullet, or slowly in a trapper's snare.
This is bad, bad news for our wildlife, our parks, and our tourism-based economy. The National Park Service’s decision to cede authority over wildlife on inholdings within the park is unjustified, unlawful, unconscionable and it must be challenged.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Yes, Sad NPS'er. For the Centennial of the National Park Service, we have a Director who wrote a book about NPS and American "Values" while bypassing mandatory approval from the Department's Ethics Office, then lied to the Secretary of Interior about whose idea it was to write the book. His cronyism and coverups of Park Superintendent wrongdoing are legendary. The employee surveys tell the truth, but nobody seems to care. This particular story is just one more example of what seems to be political expediency winning out over protecting Park wildlife.
There is one key question that is not addressed anywhere here. That question is how much of this is due to hidden backroom deals and political pressures from on high that dictate to the NPS?
People who pack the power are very adept at hiding their tracks.
Oh Lee, won't you ever quit with the baseless accustions. You keep making them, I keep asking you to back them up and then you disappear.
I see the sky is falling .......again
And I keep asking you to back your claims up and you polish up the teflon and dodge away. But when something like 85% of Americans agree that our government is corrupted by money, something just doesn't smell right. How about some proof that I'm wrong and you're right?
Ok guys, if we're not going to plow any new ground, let's move on to something substantive.
Kurt, How about some actual reporting to explain who made this decision and why? Opinion pieces can be good for raising awareness of an issue, but they're still just one person's opinion.
Dear Another Sad NPSer, and other anonymous readers, and even some who list their names:
"Actual reporting" takes time and resources. I haven't yet figured out how to clone myself, and so most of my waking hours are taken up writing, editing, trying to sell ads (that's not going so well), and more.
For example, the feature on oil trains and the threats they pose to national parks that ran last year took about three months to report and write.
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2015/05/traveler-special-report-oil...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2015/05/anatomy-oil-train-derailmen...
Then there are breaking news items, such as yesteday's climbing death on Mount Rainier, or the news that discharges from the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant were impacting Biscayne National Park, or the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on backcountry fees at Great Smoky, that derail the flow of work. As does moderating comments.
Then there's the writing that goes into four seasonal guides to the national parks, the answering of folks who want to rent cabins (we don't handle that), or have lost their parks pass and want us to look up their information and send them a new one (neither we, nor the NPS, does that), or want to know the best time of year to visit the parks, or want us to freely promote their business or product (but don't want to advertise).
Bottom line: I'm not sitting idly by waiting for op-eds to flow in. To actually report each and every story I wish we could do, and which are suggested to us, would probably reduce the content on the Traveler to three or four stories a week. Maybe.
And while I realize not everyone cares about the nesting situation at Cape Hatteras, smartphone selfies at Yellowstone and how they can kill you, or trail repairs and reroutes at Rocky Mountain, each and every unit of the National Park System has its audience of supporters/lovers that is interested in that content.
Those other bylines you occasionally see on the Traveler? Those are wonderful folks who treasure the National Park System, believe in the Traveler's mission, and by and large volunteer their time and talents to contribute with the hope that one day there will be an editorial budget to pay them.
As to your request, I can tell you that Tammy Whittington, when she was Associate Regional Director for Resource Stewardship and Science, made the call back in 2014 to let Wyoming manage the wildlife on Grand Teton's inholdings. She is now superintendent of Big Cypress National Preserve.
I also have asked for, and received, documents that lawyers are using to force the NPS to reverse itself in this case, but have questions for which answers are not easily obtained. But when I can get them I'll pass them on.
Ten years ago there was no single website devoted entirely to covering the National Park System and the National Park Service. We've filled that void...but there's so much more to be done, and we realize that.
The gist of this reply is not to belittle or make fun of your request. It's valid. But if you want more "actual reporting" of stories around the park system, we need your support, and that means your $$$ support. We have more than 1.6 million readers a year, and only about 200-300 donate to the cause each year. Really. At $10 a pop, you can figure out how much that covers.
If you fall into that category of "readers but not contributors," and you want to see the Traveler produce more "actual reporting," please donate.