You are here

Groups Sue National Park Service To Prevent Hunting Inside Grand Teton National Park

Share
Grizzly sow and cub in Grand Teton National Park/Deby Dixon

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

 Go out and shoot an eagle and see what goverment takes your head off.

Good point Alfred.  Please point to the provision in the Constitution that gives the Government that power. But more importantly, does the government allow you to shoot an eagle on public property but not on certain private property? No.


You mean in the constitution where congress was given the rights to make such laws protecting wildlife within the border of the US.  My gosh, this guy sounds like Ammon Bundy.  "It's not directly in the constitutions".  It's almost like the constitution has to be written like a Dr. Seuss book for these idiots with a reading comprehension level less than a kindergartner to understand it.  

Ohh well, the NPS determined a long time ago that hunting went against it's mission of an unimpaired natural resource.  Many smart people came to that conclusion a long time ago.  Like Rick said, this guy is just a teflon poster. Nothing sticks, and nothing permeates that thick skull with an obviously hollowed out membrane.  He really just needs to try a new stick, but I don't think he's self-aware enough to get it.  


You mean in the constitution where congress was given the rights to make such laws protecting wildlife within the border of the US.

Gee Gary, tell me what Article and section you find that designated power.  Once again heavy on the name calling and insults but very light with the facts.


Article 1, Section 1.  I realize it's not written in dr seuss prose, so I can understand why you have a hard time comprehending that the constitution grants congress the power to create legislation like the ESA. And by the way, the supreme court has ruled on that descision many times now.  I realize, you have a very rudiementary understanding of the three branches of our Federal Government, but i'm not here to teach a total dullard a civics 101 class. That's not my role in life.  So carry on in your constant state of ignorance.  Quit asking me such stupid questions, that you can find out yourself, if you learned to do some basic research.  If you need further help, I suggest looking at this site: http://www.congressforkids.net/Constitution_threebranches.htm


Article 1 Section 1. read "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

That section doesn't grant any legislative power.  All it does is indicate what power is granted will be vested in Congress.  If the power isn't granted its not vested.  

The powers are granted in Section 8.  And in the words of the Constitution's author James Madison, those powers are "limited and defined" (See Federalist 45).   In Section 8 there isn't a word about Congress having the power to pass laws regarding wildlife on non Federal property. 


To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"

As in "land forces" and "naval Forces".  Now we really see who has a reading comprehension problem.  


Ok guys, if we're not going to plow any new ground, let's move on to something substantive.


It appears that all these arguments have long ago been settled by laws enacted by Congress as they "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" as they "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States and with the Indian Tribes."  The Supreme Court has decided many times what that means.

As with the Bible, anyone can imagine any interpretation of the Constitution as they wish.  But in the case of the Constitution, that also requires ignoring the fact that the Constitution provided for a court system to interpret the document for us.

That's where the Bundys and others like them are fantasizing.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.