Editor's note: The following column was written by Kent Nelson, executive director of Wyoming Wildlife Advocates.
In November 2014, in a stunning, out-of-the-blue reversal of decades of settled policy, the National Park Service ceded to Wyoming authority over wildlife on approximately 2,300 acres of state- and privately-owned "inholdings" within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park.
At the time, several organizations, including the National Parks Conservation Association and Wyoming Wildlife Advocates (the organization which I represent), criticized this decision, declaring that it opened the door to hunting and trapping within the borders of one of the Park Service’s crown jewels.
And in fact, this quickly came to pass. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department, responsible for managing Wyoming's wildlife, almost immediately authorized hunting of elk and bison on park inholdings. Last fall three bison were taken by hunters on inholdings within the boundaries of the park.
Then, in 2015, WGFD redrew hunt areas for several species, and authorized hunting for moose and blue grouse on inholdings. Black bear hunting was also allowed.
The WGFD manages a wide array of species, most notably the big game species, but it also has authority to manage hunting and/or trapping of fur bearing animals and game birds.
The NPS decision enables the WGFD to authorize hunting or trapping on park inholdings of any, or all, of the species under its control.
That includes moose, deer, elk, cougars, black bear, bobcat, bighorn sheep, antelope, beaver, badger, marten, mink, muskrats, rabbits and snowshoe hares, squirrels, sandhill cranes, grouse, partridge, any migratory bird not protected under federal law, and more.
Also as a consequence of the NPS decision, certain other wildlife, including red foxes, coyotes, raccoons and porcupines, may be killed in unlimited numbers at any time by any lawful means on park inholdings.
Most appalling of all, WGFD will have the authority to allow hunting of grizzly bears and gray wolves on inholdings once their Endangered Species Act protections are removed.
So why then was this decision made and how can it be justified? After all, the laws regulations seem clear.
Under the Organic Act of 1916 the “primary responsibility” of the National Park Service is to “leave park resources and values unimpaired unless a particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise.”
In furtherance of this objective, Congress has reserved to itself the exclusive authority to make exceptions to the statutory mandate to preserve park resources.
The NPS itself has explicitly acknowledged this by stating in its Management Policies that “impairment of park resources and values may not be allowed by the Service unless directly and specifically provided for by legislation or by the proclamation establishing the park.”
And while Park Service regulations generally “do not apply on non-federally owned land and waters or on Indian tribal trust lands within National Park System boundaries,” specified regulations, including wildlife protection regulations, do clearly apply “regardless of land ownership, on all lands and waters within a park area that are under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States.”
The irony of this situation is heartbreaking: in Grand Teton National Park, known worldwide as a haven for wildlife, wildlife that people from around the world come to see might well be hunted. Some species already are being hunted within park boundaries.
This gives rise to the uncomfortable prospect that visitors who come to view our abundant wildlife will instead witness it being killed, quickly by a hunter's bullet, or slowly in a trapper's snare.
This is bad, bad news for our wildlife, our parks, and our tourism-based economy. The National Park Service’s decision to cede authority over wildlife on inholdings within the park is unjustified, unlawful, unconscionable and it must be challenged.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
Comments
This is absolutely outrageous and can not be allowed to happen!
It seems our national parks are dying a slow, torturous death, caught in the traps of greed and politics....
There is no excuse for voluntarily ceeding jurisdiction over park lands and resources unless specifically directed to do so by valid legislation or the direction of the courts. It is difficult to understand why the NPS would take such a step knowing the likely impacts that would result to park resources and values. The resources, including wildiife, within the parks are public belonging to all American citizens and should be managed accordingly. Cooperative management agreements between states and the NPS ,may be created to reach mutually beneficial goals, but to cede complete jurisdiction for the protection of park wildlife and resources within park boundaries is unthinkable. Are these private inholdings to become hunting/killing stations within the parks where paying hunters may bring down a trophy bear, wolf, moose or other creature when it happens to step across the boundary of a private inholding?
Nudy, you have no idea how awful this is for the NPS. Maybe you do know what employees are going through under Director Jarvis' "leadership". For being a career NPS'er he sure hasn't done this agency any good. The Employee Viewpoint Survey keeps getting worse and worse. Does the Director care? Absolutely not. The organization doesn't know which way to go because Jarvis never shared his vision, maybe he did in his snide way. And we have forgotten the mission, unfortunately. I'm wondering why the Law Enforcement Rangers think they are Rambo or Superman. They are supposed to protect the resources, not try to go be a variety of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies. You have Interp Park Rangers that act like visitors are bothering them. There is zero accountability. People are getting laterals or promotions not because of their qualifications. Jarvis himself knowingly went past the Ethics folks. Yes, the Ethics people suck and a lot of them are in that position because they were habitual grievers, but their supervisors don't care and let them suck. And Jarvis knew how terrible they were and didn't try to correct it. Ethics is HUGE! Well, at least in my world, apparently not in others.
We are getting gobs of money to work on the maintenance backlog but contracting is such a joke. We are getting crappy contractors and our COs aren't competent to stop work. Instead we just pay out contractors and start all over. If the Feds made it easier to fire a crappy employee we probably would be in better shape. There are tons of able, willing folks that want to join the agency but cant. Our bar is so low it is pathetic and sad. NPS is really neat agency but is being rHines really fast. Thanks, Jarvis!
I fear that it is death by suicide. The threat is more within than without.
I am appalled by the lack of concern for and long term care for wildlife. Traps have been banned in Europe for decades since the cruel and inhumane way in which they make animals is torture and animal abuse. The FBI now keeps a listing of animal abusers, any hunters using traps or snares should be added to this list. These people are more likely to become criminals and harm other humans. The Natioanl Parks and Public lands deserve better than so called managers who are wholesale selling out wildlife to trophy hunters. Wolves and bears add in the creation of trophic cascades which allow grazing animals like Elk to be herded and protect delicate ecosystems and threatened plants and trees, rivers are helthier when predators abound. They kill the old and the sick animals, the weak. Trophy hunters target the strong and beautiful who have the best chance of leading wildlife in future generations and making their social orders strong. Where is the science. Show me the scientist who thinks that cruel traps and trophy hunting and caving into special interest ranchers is the answer? You disrespect the ancient vlaues of the Indigenous people by slaughtering Bison and delisting grizzly bears. Must a return to the bad old days of near and mass extinctions be the fututre. Have some insight, read and do your jobs with dignity respecting nature and what is right.
I support scientific wildlife management as establishde by Aldo Leopold and implemented by among others, our US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Wyoming Fish and Game. Scientific Wildlife Management uses hunting as one of it's primary tools. I'm glad the Park Service has taken the responsible path to managing wildlife by allowing Wyoming to have controlled hunting on inholdings within Teton Park. Those hunts will not disrupt any other users of the park unless those users are trespassing on private land.
If Mr. Nelson finds this heartbreaking I suggest he never did have an interest in wildlife, wildlife is red of tooth and claw as we saw last week with 17 young elk calves sport killed by wolves in Bonderant. There is a difference between being a supporter of wildlife and being an animal rights advocate.
It is relavent to note that the NPS is still pursuing funding to buy the remaining 1200 acres of state school land in Grand Teton. The $85 million dollar price tag may seem unreasonable with all the talk of a maintenance backlog but its the best way to ensure that lands not owned by the NPS are managed according to NPS policy.
Somsai, those 17 elk were killed on a feedlot, which is the equivalent of raising domesticated animals that lose their natural ability to be alert and avoid being prey. This is exactly how some want to treat our National Parks too. Like feedlots and game farms.
Yes, Sad NPS'er. For the Centennial of the National Park Service, we have a Director who wrote a book about NPS and American "Values" while bypassing mandatory approval from the Department's Ethics Office, then lied to the Secretary of Interior about whose idea it was to write the book. His cronyism and coverups of Park Superintendent wrongdoing are legendary. The employee surveys tell the truth, but nobody seems to care. This particular story is just one more example of what seems to be political expediency winning out over protecting Park wildlife.
There is one key question that is not addressed anywhere here. That question is how much of this is due to hidden backroom deals and political pressures from on high that dictate to the NPS?
People who pack the power are very adept at hiding their tracks.
Oh Lee, won't you ever quit with the baseless accustions. You keep making them, I keep asking you to back them up and then you disappear.
Anyone foolish enough to believe that political pressures and backroom dealings don't have any effect on our parks really needs to sit down and read Your Yosemite, A Threatened Public Treasure. Author Bob Binnewies, former Yosemite superintendent, tells the story very capably.
I agree Lee, it was a very interesting read. The chapters on climbing history are very informative. The climbers that helped save the Peregrine Falcons from extinction is quite inspirational. I think it is important to note that career civil service employees serve under the politically appointed officials of which ever political party is in power. Believe me they have influence, the book "Your Yosemite" deals with the issue, without bitterness or rancor. There are people stories to, the young naturalist asked to be the tour guide for the Queen of Englands visit. She was told to sit in the back and not say anything unless asked. The King is an avid birder, the secret service, other selected community leaders, were not up on the subject. Finally the Queen asked if anyone in the tour coach had any knowledge of "The Birds of Yosemite". The young women interpreter spoke out, said I do. She was promoted to the front seat. A must read for those interested in serving in the organization.
I see the sky is falling .......again
And I keep asking you to back your claims up and you polish up the teflon and dodge away. But when something like 85% of Americans agree that our government is corrupted by money, something just doesn't smell right. How about some proof that I'm wrong and you're right?
Ok guys, if we're not going to plow any new ground, let's move on to something substantive.
Kurt, How about some actual reporting to explain who made this decision and why? Opinion pieces can be good for raising awareness of an issue, but they're still just one person's opinion.
Dear Another Sad NPSer, and other anonymous readers, and even some who list their names:
"Actual reporting" takes time and resources. I haven't yet figured out how to clone myself, and so most of my waking hours are taken up writing, editing, trying to sell ads (that's not going so well), and more.
For example, the feature on oil trains and the threats they pose to national parks that ran last year took about three months to report and write.
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2015/05/traveler-special-report-oil...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2015/05/anatomy-oil-train-derailmen...
Then there are breaking news items, such as yesteday's climbing death on Mount Rainier, or the news that discharges from the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant were impacting Biscayne National Park, or the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on backcountry fees at Great Smoky, that derail the flow of work. As does moderating comments.
Then there's the writing that goes into four seasonal guides to the national parks, the answering of folks who want to rent cabins (we don't handle that), or have lost their parks pass and want us to look up their information and send them a new one (neither we, nor the NPS, does that), or want to know the best time of year to visit the parks, or want us to freely promote their business or product (but don't want to advertise).
Bottom line: I'm not sitting idly by waiting for op-eds to flow in. To actually report each and every story I wish we could do, and which are suggested to us, would probably reduce the content on the Traveler to three or four stories a week. Maybe.
And while I realize not everyone cares about the nesting situation at Cape Hatteras, smartphone selfies at Yellowstone and how they can kill you, or trail repairs and reroutes at Rocky Mountain, each and every unit of the National Park System has its audience of supporters/lovers that is interested in that content.
Those other bylines you occasionally see on the Traveler? Those are wonderful folks who treasure the National Park System, believe in the Traveler's mission, and by and large volunteer their time and talents to contribute with the hope that one day there will be an editorial budget to pay them.
As to your request, I can tell you that Tammy Whittington, when she was Associate Regional Director for Resource Stewardship and Science, made the call back in 2014 to let Wyoming manage the wildlife on Grand Teton's inholdings. She is now superintendent of Big Cypress National Preserve.
I also have asked for, and received, documents that lawyers are using to force the NPS to reverse itself in this case, but have questions for which answers are not easily obtained. But when I can get them I'll pass them on.
Ten years ago there was no single website devoted entirely to covering the National Park System and the National Park Service. We've filled that void...but there's so much more to be done, and we realize that.
The gist of this reply is not to belittle or make fun of your request. It's valid. But if you want more "actual reporting" of stories around the park system, we need your support, and that means your $$$ support. We have more than 1.6 million readers a year, and only about 200-300 donate to the cause each year. Really. At $10 a pop, you can figure out how much that covers.
If you fall into that category of "readers but not contributors," and you want to see the Traveler produce more "actual reporting," please donate.
Thanks, Kurt for all you continue to do.
Don't always agree with you Kurt but do always appreciate your efforts on this site.
Yet they reelect their Senators more than 80% of the time and their Congressmen more than 90% of the time. That kind of makes your 85% number "smelly"
"Yet they reelect their Senators more than 80% of the time and their Congressmen more than 90% of the time. That kind of makes your 85% number "smelly""
That's because they think it's not their representatives who are corrupted, but rather others who are.
Kurt want an opinion on how to make this site better, get more active participants and have more of an active following... radiate that forum cancer that is ECBuck from your site. These type of trolls drive away people from being active participants. I'm not saying everyone is perfect, and it should all be 'kumbaya" but this guy trolls the forum to the point where he controls just about every thread and 99% of the time it's done in a way to irritate. I'm telling you, it's keeping people from wanting to participate here.
Gary, there are many folks who disagree with the views of others on the site, and who take their responses to the extreme. If people don't like EC's point of view, or that of others, then they shouldn't respond to those comments. It's as simple as that.
While we're on the subject of our elected representatives, think of this: Every U.S. Senator and Representative, on average, spends four hours per day on the phone raising money. Do I believe it? I do. Because when I ran for mayor of Seattle, I received the exact same advice. Al, if you don't spend every afternoon on the phone raising money, you might just as well not be in the race.
Why do 85% of our reps get re-elected? Because they have already been elected, is the point. They know the game; they have the contacts. And most important, their names are already recognized by the electorate. Try putting together a campaign from scratch. Donald Trump can do it because he is a billionaire. Alfred Runte thought himself lucky when he got a hundred bucks.
The approval rating of Congress is actually just 10 percent. But who else are you going to vote for? Who else can afford to run remains the point.
Statistics and approval ratings tell only part of the story. Accordingly, I will make this prediction. If Donald Trump gets nominated, all bets are off. Why? Because he doesn't have to call a soul. Going into the election, and if in the White House, he will not have to answer to his contributors. Those fours per day will instead go to policy-making. At least, that is history's fondest hope.
Now, before anyone accuses me of favoring The Donald, remember that a good historian favors no one. But yes, four hours a day is TOO MUCH. It is time that such nonsense end.
Ha! You should get rid of the logical and common sense commenter ecbuck and keep the name caller, belligerent, and delusion Gary. The intolerance and hypocrisies of these lefty progressives is so laughable. Ec is only sane commenter here, you loose him, you loose ALL credibility. That's reality...
Yeah, this site is for the trolls like it always has been. It's for the beachdumps, ecbucks, and SFW and other anti-nps troglodytes. Basically low level fools that are allowed to dictate the tempo and control the flow in the forums, even if none of them have any expertise, or knowledge in the subjects they rant about constantly in thier anti-nps trolling. Not one single thread can ever be discussed without the anti-science, anti-nps fools jumping in and basically ruining it or attempting to control it. While, you have a small gathering of mostly retired NPS people posting here, you almost never see any current NPS employees or association employees wanting to come here and toss any opinions , and there is a reason for it. That's because the forums here are a JOKE filled with this garbage that resembles the bundy circus in oregon. ECbuck is such a joke, and so is beachdump. So, I bid good riddance to this site. Kurt, it's hard to respect this site, with this constant BS you allow to permeate here. Plus, 99% of the site is just regurgated news from facebook feeds, so it's not like this news is special. At least in facebook you can completely make these idiots disappear from your feed. Here that's not a reality. Regardless, whatever. Carry on trollers.
Alfred, I have always been skeptical of the influence of money. Perhaps that is my personal bias. You can spend what ever you want on commerciasl and campaign rhetoric and I am still going to investigate the candidate/issues and vote my principles. 85% don't like Congress but they vote for them anyway? (though Mike has a point, they just don't like the "other" Congressmen) Perhaps others are not so engaged. Certainly from some of the comments I have seen, they aren't informed. Perhaps a poll test is in order. Can't name your current Presdient and VP can't vote for the next. (tongue only partially in cheek).
Thank you Traveler for the op-ed by Kent Wilson of the Wyoming Wildlife Association. Hopefully the environmental community can have this decision reversed or litigated.
This is just another nail in the coffin of our wonderful Nationail Park System. Slowly but surely the system is being degraded and management does not care or even have one clue on how to stop this process.
Harry,
The problem is that there is no oversight mechanism for the NPS. My own congressman, John Duncan who was on the public lands committee has publicly said, "The NPS can do anything short of murdering someone, and get away with it." Jarvis knows this and his legacy will be such. He took "America's best idea" and turned it into "American's greatest cadre of bureaucratic con artists."
All-too-often, government career bureaucrats have a tendency to avoid battles for fear of losing them - even when important principles are at stake. The National Park Service is not immune to this pattern of capitulation to avoid confrontation. To not make waves is commonally considered the mark of a successful manager or administrator. As these individuals rise through the ranks they judge their subordinates by their own tendency to avoid politically sensitive issues and by their "go along to get along" pattern of professional decisions. I recall while dealing with the issue of illegal ATV incursions onto parklands being told by a mid-level ranger that we had to be sensitive to political realities and to avoid making local residents angry. I respected his perspective, but I told him that whatever political reaction might take place, it was the superintendent's job to deal with it and to take whatever heat might be generated. His job was to enforce the regulations and to protect park resources and values. When field rangers fear enforcing park regulations and being proactive in protecting the park it is a sign that the reluctance to deal with substantive park issues has become institutionalized.
Nice post Ray, this has been my experience in some cases also. I understand the need for sensitivity for the concerns of public, SWAT Team tactics or a to heavy handed enforcement approach often badkfires. I always thought the NPS had a good Law Enforcement policy, "the lowest effective level of enforcement" in dealing with violations. This can begin with a friendly educational approach, it can escalate, but it is always easier to escalate a situation than deescalate one.