Conservation groups have filed notice they will sue Wyoming over a law allowing the state to stage grizzly hunts/NPS
Two days after word broke that Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon had signed into law legislation calling for a grizzly bear hunt in the state, conservation groups filed notice to sue the state.
“This is an egregious attempt to ignore federal law protecting Yellowstone’s iconic grizzly bears,” said Bonnie Rice, senior representative with Sierra Club’s Our Wild America campaign, two days after Traveler reported the bill signing. “We will not idly stand by while Wyoming moves to illegally take authority for managing grizzly bears and subject them to trophy hunts.”
Grizzly bears in Wyoming are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In September a federal judge struck down an attempt by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove federal protection for grizzlies in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, thwarting Wyoming’s plan to hold a fall hunting season.
Last September grizzly bears that roam the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem regained protection from hunters under the Endangered Species Act due to a judge's ruling that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not adequately consider how delisting the bears would impact the species as a whole when it moved to delist the species from the act. That ruling brought a halt to planned grizzly bear hunts in Wyoming and Idaho.
But during the current legislative session politicians in Wyoming passed a bill to authorize the Game and Fish Commission to schedule a hunt if it "would be beneficial for managing Wyoming's wildlife and protecting Wyoming workers and other citizens and tourists of the state..." Last Friday the measure was signed into law by Gov. Gordon.
The legislation also said the commission might "relocate to the state of California all grizzly bears trapped for relocation or that would otherwise be euthanized."
“Wyoming seems to be stuck in a 19th century mindset in which the response to every situation is to kill off native predators,” said Erik Molvar, a wildlife biologist and executive director at Western Watersheds Project. “It’s a good thing we have federal laws like the Endangered Species Act to limit the harm from states like Wyoming that seem bent on marking certain wildlife for eradication.”
At the Center for Biological Diversity, Noah Greenwald, the organization's endangered species director, said the move by Wyoming's politicians shows "that the state is far from ready to manage grizzlies.”
The notice of intent to sue says the Wyoming law violates the Endangered Species Act and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that federal law must supersede state law
“This state law directly and unlawfully conflicts with the clear mandate of the federal Endangered Species Act that grizzly bears not be shot by trophy hunters seeking their heads and hides for bragging rights,” said Nicholas Arrivo, a staff attorney with the Humane Society of the United States."
Comments
Do you ever get tired of making things up? If the federal government only had the power to regulate the taking of animals only on federal land, the Endangered Species Act would have no teeth. The majority of threatened and endagered species are on private or non-federal government-owned land and the ability of the federal government to enforce the ESA with regards to non-federal land has been upheld numerous times in court.
Even before the ESA there was the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. So according to your interpretation of the Constitution, the following is not part of an enumerated federal power, and a state could allow all this as long as it doesn't occur on federal land?
Here we go again. Federalism vs states rights. It's ok to allow a state to legalize marijuana but not to manage the wildlife in their state? How about a middle ground? They are not looking to eradicate the grizzky just keep the numbers in check.
The bears in Wyoming have no reason to fear humans. Sonfoid association is inevitable. Time to bring back the fear.
To your question, y_p_w, about ECBuck making things up...the simple and obvious answer is NO. Thank goodness for all of us that EC is only the resident NPT troll and not the federal judge who has already ruled about the status of the endangered grizzly bear in the Yellowstone Ecosystem.
I don't get him sometimes. I suppose he hasn't quite said he supported the Malheur NWR occupation. However, that little piece sounded vaguely like those "Constitutionalists" who claim that the Enclave Clause means that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to own land in an admitted state outside of limited enumerated reasons.
I certainly haven't heard any reasonable case made by EC that the federal government can't bar hunting of federally listed endangered or threatened species.
oops, So food association with humans is inevitable. The recent death of a hunting guide field dressing an elk is a startling example of this. Let's use common sense and manage appropriately not politically.
wrong answer there Bill. The problem is too many boars. Males will kill cubs to mate with the sow. Sows with cubs then range abroad, miles away from their current "natural habitat". Like all the way down here to Byron Wy, where kids help in chores such as irrigation and/or play. This is a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately peple live here too. A hunt to manage the number of big males is neeeded.
For what it is worth, the ESA is derived from the Federal authroity established under the Commerce Clause. For a detailed explanation and discussion of the question of why the ESA would still apply on non-federal land for an intrastate species (i.e., a species that exists only in one state), here is a link to a 2017 ruling on such a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4151.pdf