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
Really, a higher level? The guy that can't write more than 2 sentances in a comment to express his thoughts. Please. When something is removed from a system, it does have consequences. Define "negative impact" in this case, please? Please express your thoughts at a higher level, because your comment is way too vague, and if you think killing elk in a national park doesn't have an impact, then explain why you think that is not negative in more than 2 sentances. Why would killing or removing native wildlife from a wildlife sanctuary not have at least a negative impact, regardless of the size of the impact? Please express this in a more rational context. I realize, that might be tough for you, but let's dig deep and try... Then maybe I can take you and your trolling a little bit more serious. Right now, I just see you as a site irritant, that should be eliminated like an invasive species.
By the way, the inholdings fall under NPS jurisdiction, and hopefully, this lawsuit will bring this out into the open, and force other parks to follow these standards. Zion could also use this ruling.
Here is the enabling legislation. Not a peep about the feds controlling hunting on state or public land.
https://www.nps.gov/grte/learn/management/upload/Grand-Teton-NP-enabling...
In what form did this "agreement" occur and who actually were parties to the "agreement".
I appreciate your efforts in trying to chase down the documents.
Here is the lawsuit. There is no evidence or even a claim that there was a formal agreement.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9ViaezzbfznU3ViRy1tdjBxeUU/view?pref=2...
Still can't (won't) answer the question. I don't need to write a disertation to ask it. There are culling kills that take place all over the country supported by "scientific" analysis that has determined they are beneficial to their environments. Clearly not every elk, deer, python...... kill is a detriment. You come at this with the foregone conclusion it is always a detriment. Obviously there are many that disagree with you. So once again - IF it is shown not to be detrimental, why ban it?
Could you please provide the federal law or Constitutional provision that establishes that fact? Because if true, it is a very scary proposition.
Once again, you seem to think that National Parks < State lands. Not the case. National Parks are and shall be our highest level of land protection within the entire public lands system. This act is a inroad to eroding the system. I know that's what you like about it, and why you sit here and defend it, because you have proven many times in your trolling that you are no fan of the National Parks in this system, and will say and do anything to subvert and possibly erode the system that has been built with a century of hard standing politics and science from dedicated conservationists, scientists, and politicians.
While, it's definitely true that culls have gone on, most of the time that has occurred because they are either 1. An invasive species and a detriment to the ecosystem (you should relate), or 2. They have no natural predators because they were wiped out, so man has to step in (rocky mountain national parks absence of native species like wolves, and grizzlies leading NPS biologists to sterilize, and in some cases euthanize female elk when the population gets to a point of eroding the range. 3. The migration routes of these species are completely disrupted because of politics outside of a NPS boundary (hence bison hazing, and cull in yellowstone)
In the case of GTNP where wolves, grizzlies, and cougars are within the ecosystem I don't see those factors being the case. What I do see however, is that the domesticated feedlot that is used for wintering elk, along with these actions by the wyoming F&G are corrupting the overall mission of the NPS to administering and unimpaired natural resource for future generations. They are artificially inflating elk species, and of course the Wyoming F&G is using this artificial inflation to create a hunt within the park (hence, resource extraction). The idea of a feedlot should be disbanded and hopefully this lawsuit forces the hand of the NPS to kick out the F&G which is nothing more than a ungulate game management entity. The wyoming fish and game has millions of acres of USFS and BLM land to administer their game farms. Turning GTNP into a yearly hunting ground is a corruption of the NPS mission. The NPS should be held at a higher standard of not allowing resource extraction in their park boundaries.
I realize nothing I say will penetrate into that thick numbskull... so this my last comment to you. Now good riddance.
So you finally have (kind of) given an answer. There is no valid reason other than your personal emotions.
Listen, guys, to the Old Professor. You just can't make this up as you go along. Private property or government property, wildlife is governed by laws that go back hundreds of years. If a deer is sitting in my front yard, I just don't have the right to shoot it. I can if the deer is in season, but again, not without the proper permit. You bet, EC. The government can tell you what to do with wildlife, because wildlife has always been identified as "mobile." You don't own it any more than you would own an airplane forced down in your driveway.
You keep saying: Show me where hunting is detrimental to the national parks. I will be glad to show you that. A few years ago, kids hunting bear along a trail in one of Washington State's national forests happened to shoot a hiker instead. They mistook her for a bear and killed her. High-powered rifles can kill from a mile or more. Who wants that in a national park?
If I am wrong, go shoot whatever next comes into your yard. I am sure they have wi-fi in jail. You can tell us what it felt like being John Colter. The only problem is: He lived 200 years ago when the West was sparsely populated and not in need of national parks. Now that we need them, we have the right to manage them properly. Or would you like to be mistaken for an elk? Don't laugh. Hunters still tie cows to their bumpers in upstate New York, claiming they are deer. It moved and so I shot it, and now I am taking it home! And believe me, hunters are good at culling one another, as well. You may find that acceptable in a national park. I don't, and I don't care what the "science" says.
I gave you that answer many miles back. You have a terrible reading comprehension problems, so of course, I don't expect you to comprehend most of what is said on this site when people respond to your useless, but always annoying trolling.
And that has nothing to do with emotions. It is protecting the NPS mission, something I firmly trust in.
And I agree with Alfred, one of the best part about going to National Parks during elk hunt season in the northern rockies, is because you aren't going to get shot. Parks are a refuge for non-hunters to enjoy wildlife in a natural state.
I'm going to add something else. One of the reason, many of the bucks in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park make the cover of hunting magazines, is because it's one of the few places you can actually see 13 point bucks, because they get to live naturaly long lives free from hunting and extraction.
Yes - the state government can tell you. The federal government has no jurisdiction.
Never said that. My question has been if it is not detrimental, why ban it.