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."
Comments
Sorry Gary, I don't see anything inherently evil in consumptive actives, especially with a renewable resource.
I don't have a problem with consumptive use in USFS areas or state game lands. Where I have a problem with it is in NPS lands. So quit putting words in my mouth, overlord troll.
What words did I put in your mouth? You have a problem with consumptive on NPS lands. I don't - at least not if the science indicates they won't be destructive to the long term health of the ecosystem. I will ask again, what makes an Elk in GTNP any more sacrosanct then one in a National Forest.
Because, ungulate species in the USFS and state game land are usually unnaturally inflated to keep the fish and game agencies in the state afloat because that's their bread and butter money when they sell tags. Whereas in the NPS, that is not the case, and not a factor, and carnivore species are protected and not intentionally minimized so that the F&G agency can promote unnaturally large herds of ungulates. Idaho was terrible for this practice. Many states fall victim to this practice, especially poor states that don't have much of a tax base.
Same goes for fish species. In most F&G agencies, they tend to only be concerned with "game fish". In the NPS, preserving the entire ecosystem, and going beyond just maintaining game fish is a key role of the agency. Hence, the ecosystems are a lot more complete and intact in most NPS lands, compared to USFS lands. That's why the NPS has been trying to remove non-native lake trout in Lake Yellowstone or preserving species like darters (far from a game fish) in the southeast. Some of the best science is done in the NPS, because the system has a much more evolved mission, than say a F&G agency.
Once again, it gets kind of old butting heads with a realtor whose full time job seems to be a troll on this site that constantly pretends to act like he cares about the NPS, but whose posts when reviewed seems to crave dismantling everything it is about.
Gary the issue isn't ungulates versus carnivores. The issue that was being discussed was hunting in general. If the science shows there is no ill effects on the ecosystem, I see no logical reason to ban it.
delete post.. duplicate.
Obviously, it didn't register,
The only thing that has registered is your wild conspiracy theories about various wildlife agencies. The question, which you continue to refuse to answer is "If the science says there will be no ill effects and maybe even a beneficial impact, why not allow hunting".
Once again, you asked and I gave you an answer. Obviously, it didn't register. Once again, in NPS lands, carnivores are usually a key component, and especially in the Yellowstone ecosystem they play a key role, which is usually not allowed to occur in other areas outside of the boundaries, because these state game agencies intentionally try and mininimize the role of grizzlies, wolves, or other carnivores like wolverines or lynx so that they can intentionally overinflate ungulate and game species. That's why the only solid wolverine habitat left is in national park service units. Same goes for grizzlies. These ares should be seen and maintained as pure wildlife sanctuaries.
The NPS at GTNP is not ran like a typical NPS unit. In this case, the state of wyoming is calling the shots, not the NPS. A majority of state ran F&G agencies are not in the game of ecosystem science as much as promoting and fostering game species. In many cases, carnivore species are completely minimized to allow for an unnatural amount of ungulates so that the fish and game can then hunt about 30 to 40% of their population per year (which is their way to get funding). Obviously, this isn't sinking into your head. That's why the state of colorado doesn't want wolves or grizzlies in their boundaries to touch any of their precious elk that hunters can shoot. Elk in colorado are also unnaturally overpopulated. They'll do whatever they can to make sure that they stay out of their boundaries, even if wolves and grizzlies played a role on the landscape well before those f&g agencies came into being.
Im not really a big fan of what goes on around Jackson either. They intentionally inflate elk numbers at the elk refuge by basically creating a domesticated feedlot. I'm glad that the NPCA is willing to step up to the plate and fight this. The feedlot should end, and so should the hunting within the national park boundaries. Glad to see a real conservation organization standing up for what is right, and maintained by many years of science. They need to kick the F&G agencies out of our national parks, and let it be done by real scientists not set on just inflating game species. I guarantee, if the wyoming F&G (who I consider a barbaric agency ran by the cowiphate in that state) truly had their way, they'd pretty much eliminate most of the wolves and grizzlies in their state, but thanks to the feds, their role is at least minimized throug the ESA. In this case though, they have an inroad that is not in the best interest in the protection of what a national park is and could be. Basically, these acres are a glorified state game land. National Parks go beyond state game lands, and should be held at a much higher standard of protection.