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
So now we believe in science. But what if the scientists have a hidden agenda? What if, in working for a federal agency, they do exactly as they are told?
This just happened in Searchlight, Nevada. A big wind farm planned between the town and Lake Mead National Recreation Area listed no "ill effects"--that according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM. Eagle strikes? Not a problem. The "scientists" found only three.
Ah, but the amateurs found dozens more and took the feds to court. The judge threw out the environmental impact statement, prepared by the "scientists," and went with what anyone's eyes could see.
Searclight is Harry Reid's hometown--allegedly a Democrat. Right. And what does that have to do with "money?" You want to believe in scientists? So do I. But I know better when it comes to politics.
There is nothing scientific about the elk hunt in Grand Teton National Park. Historically, it goes back to Wyoming's objections to John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and the establishment of Jackson Hole National Monument. To get the monument added to Grand Teton National Park, the federal government agreed to accept Wyoming's "science." One may see the same "science" all across the national park system where local interests are involved.
In other words, once again, stop looking for heroes in your political party. There are none, the history shows. All politics is local; the people electing you are the ones you listen to the most.
In the few instances when the nation has done the right thing, it has listened to a broad consensus. But often that only came following blood. The national park idea, lest we forget, was itself born in the midst of civil war. We allow local interests to prevail over the national interest at the expense of our best idea. Senator Reid, this one's for you. You lost at Searchlight. Now take your lumps. And while you're at it, help clean up the mess in Grand Teton National Park.
Do you have any science to indicate it is detrimental? Seems it was a pretty attractive trade, to get GTNP (or its predecessor) for a hunt that has no ill effects.
Because once again it didn't provide an answer. If it does no harm or even is beneficial, why ban it.
My guess is that if Wyoming's elk feeding grounds were closed, the elk problem would solve itself and there would be no need to cull/hunt elk inside Grand Teton.
Mission: The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.
When you have a small segment of the population blasting elk, grizzlies, wolves in a wildlife sanctuary, it makes the cultural resources impaired. Where does this inroad end? What's next? When condor's are considered recovered, will Arizona G&F decide it's ok to add a trophy hunting season inside GCNP? But, fortuantely, that won't happen under current laws.
If it wasn't for the Everglades NP, there more than likely would have never been the recovery of the alligator, or the egret. Our NP's should be held to higher standards than ecosystems controlled by your atypical F&G agency. Currently Glacier is one of the last strong strangleholds of the wolverine in the lower 48.
Once again, I await the day when the barbaric state of Idaho, and their fiddle players in the F&G say hey "you know what, over 10,000 grizzlies were once in the state of Idaho a century ago, maybe we should allow them to return back into their key habitat".
But that doesn't happen. All they care about is elk, mule deer, and moose. Instead of culling grizzlies in the borders of Yellowstone because a few f&g scientist deem them recovered because they are now expanding outside of the park and potentially feasting on their precious elk hunting stock, they need to instead be taking some of the population and re-establishing them back into places like Rocky Mountain National Park, the Frank Church Wilderness, etc where they are far from recovered, but have traditional range and a lot of habitat available to them. Put them back in telluride!
That perhaps is true Kurt, but what would be gained by that? From what I can see, having the feeding grounds and a brief hunt does not harm while providing recreation and food for a good number.
Well, that's a discussion that could go in many directions. Personally, I have no objections to hunting. But the feeding grounds have been identified as a source of disease, and some would say artificially inflate elk numbers beyond carrying capacity.
How to manage wildlife resources on public lands is a tough, politically charged issue. As Gary notes, too often it is designed to bolster prey for hunters, and not predators to naturally manage prey. And then there's the oddball: trying to artificially maintain a low Yellowstone bison population in the name of brucellosis prevention when it's been said that elk are carriers, too, and more likely to spread the disease to livestock.
And I see nothing wrong with that. What is the difference between feeding elk and having a hunt and feeding cattle and having a slaughter? As long as its done without negative impacts to the park, I don't see the problem. And to bring it more to home with this article, as was pointed out by som sai elsewhere and the article itself, this is about hunting on private not public land.