National park superintendents are expected to see if they could relax their wildlife management regulations to bring them in line with state guidelines/NPS
National Park Service officials will be expected to respond to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's order that they relax their wildlife management regulations if necessary to conform to those of states in which parks are located.
While officials in the Park Service's Washington, D.C., headquarters said that "(A)ny such recommendations will be made consistent with the (National Park Service) Organic Act and other federal laws and regulations," they added that recommendations also will be "in accord with policies established by the Director of the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior."
In early September the Interior secretary told the bureaus under his authority that he "reaffirms" a 1983 policy that gives the states the authority "to exercise their broad trustee and police powers as stewards of the Nation's fish and wildlife species on public lands and waters under the jurisdiction of the Department."
"State governments have established fish and wildlife agencies that are charged with the responsibility and mandate to implement those statutes ensuring effective, appropriate, and efficient conservation and management of fish and resident wildlife species, including providing citizens wtih the opportunity to enjoy those fish and wildlife species through regulated hunting, fishing, and trapping," wrote Secretary Zinke.
But there have been concerns voiced over the order, and the secretary's authority to tell the Park Service to follow a state's lead in managing wildlife has been questioned by legal experts.
Robert Keiter, a law professor at the University of Utah and director of the Wallace Stegner Center of Land, Resources, and the Environment said the Interior secretary can't unilaterally issue such a directive.
"The Secretary of Interior cannot override the (National Park Service) Organic Act conservation mandate, nor can he override the NPS regulations implementing it, which generally prohibit hunting in national parks unless specifically authorized by Congress," Professor Keiter told the Traveler in an email. "At a minimum, Zinke would have to revise the NPS regulations (see 36 CFR 2.2) prohibiting hunting, and even that would probably not be enough to authorize hunting generally in the national parks given the Organic Act’s language about conserving wildlife and limiting the taking of animals to narrow cases.
"Moreover, in several cases, national parks (like Yellowstone) are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, so there is no legal basis for applying state laws in those federal enclaves," he added.
Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, said the secretary's order "stunningly ignores the national commitment, and his own department’s responsibilities, for conservation of these resources."
“State wildlife agencies serve an essential role in managing resident species of fish and wildlife, but it is the federal government, acting on behalf of the American people as a whole, that has paramount authority for the protection and conservation of endangered and threatened species, migratory birds, and fish populations in the United States," added Rappaport. "The federal government manages the National Wildlife Refuge System, a network of federal lands expressly created to serve the national interest in wildlife conservation, and the other great systems of federal lands.
“It would be both inappropriate and illegal to ‘defer’ to the states in carrying out these primary federal responsibilities for wildlife conservation. How the Secretary could issue a memorandum on fish and wildlife conservation without mentioning the Endangered Species Act or the National Wildlife Refuge System is beyond me."
In their response to Traveler questions, Park Service staff noted that, "(C)onservation and management of fish and wildlife and recreation opportunities are critical to the mission of the National Park Service as defined by the Organic Act. Regulations regarding hunting and fishing often mirror state regulations although they may vary according to federal laws, including the park’s enabling legislation. Additional policies and regulations are accomplished through collaboration with adjacent federal, private, and state land managers and through public engagement."
Already the secretary has pushed the Park Service to relax its hunting and trapping guidelines on national preserves in Alaska to bring them in line with state regulations.
The proposed regulations would match state rules that were implemented to suppress carnivore numbers in order to increase game populations. The practices, which the Park Service banned in 2015 and which are now set to be legalized, would allow:
* Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites
* Harvesting brown bears over bait
* Taking wolves and coyotes (including pups) during the denning season (between May 1 and August 9)
* Taking swimming caribou
* Taking caribou from motorboats under power
* Taking black bears over bait
* Using dogs to hunt black bears
An environmental assessment conducted to assess the impacts of such a change in NPS regulations is open for public comment through November 5 at this site. While the document notes that bear baiting led to a high percentage of bears taken from Kenai Peninsula hunting areas, "(b)ecause baiting on most national preserves would be more difficult, the percentage of brown bears taken over bait under the proposed action is expected to be lower..."
The EA did note, however, that, bears drawn to baits could become habituated to human foods and so possibly create problem bears.
As of Sunday, at least 178,403 comments had been submitted on the proposed changes.
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.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
These possible actions seem to be not in line with what are National Parks are suppose to represent to our country and the world. All of these hunting practices are inumane and cruel. As a nation we are better than this, Mr. Zinke is not living up to his commintment to Protect and conserve this country's natural resources and wildlife.
We have to protect the innocent animals that are suffering from the hands of humans. We are sacrificing endangered species for what ? Money is not enough to justify the killings of Thousands of animals .They deserve to be there . We are the invaders of their lives and land. STOP THE KILLING OF INNOCENT ANIMALS. They deserve better than this. Society today is all about killing anything. Please help save these beautiful animals from extension .It will be a travesty to lose a single animal. You made a commitment to protect and stand up for the ESA. However now that the new president is a father of an avid trophy hunter . Does not give you the right to go back on your commitment. We the majority of the people want these animals left alone . LET THEM LIVE IN PEACE. STOP THE KILLING OF INNOCENT ANIMALS ..
Our national parks should be out of reach for hunting of any kind, Its our duty to protect, let nature take its course it has been doing its job without the hand of man for millions of yesrs.
We must be a voice for these animals that are suffering from the hands of humans. We are the invaders of their lives and land. These animals have been here thousands of years. We can't be the generation that drives them to extinction . Fight for the Endangered Species Act we have to keep going . We have to change the way we do things like this. Society today is so screwed up and wrong. It is a destructive move to allow any hunting of these animals.
The article notes "'Moreover, in several cases, national parks (like Yellowstone) are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, so there is no legal basis for applying state laws in those federal enclaves,' he [Keiter] added."
A professor of law should be aware that 54 USC 100754 directs the Secretary of Interior to diligently pursue arrangements with each State or territory within which a National Park System unit is located so that insofar as practicable the United States shall exercise concurrent legislative jurisdiction within System units, and authorizes the Secretary to relinquish exclusive Federal jurisdiction (1976 General Authorities Act). GAO report "National Park Service Should Negotiate With States To Achieve Concurrent Jurisdiction" was published in 1982, chiding NPS for not doing so. In 2014, NPS did retrocede exclusive jurisdiction over five NPS sites in South Carolina to the state (79 FR 19120).
We should not be surprised if Secretary Zinke proposes to exercise this authority...
p.s. A professor of law should also be aware Federal courts have endorsed "culling" (arbitarily distinguished by purpose, not action, from "hunting") elk in Rocky Mountain NP, a Park under exclusive Federal jurisdiction (Wild Earth Guardians v. NPS, D. Colorado, 804 F.Supp.2d 1150 (2011)). However, this was before 54 USC 100755 was enacted in 2014, contradicting the basis of this decision.
54 USC 100754 does open the door for that, but it also specifies that the secretary must "submit the proposed agreement to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives."
In other words, as the story clearly states, the secretary can't unilaterally give up that authority.
Additionally, that section also notes that in moving to establish any such arrangements the secretary should ensure that the federal government "shall exercise concurrent legislative jurisdiction within System units."
Kurt, the Secretary must submit the proposal to retrocede exclusive Federal jurisdiction to Congress, but if Congress fails to veto it within 60 days, the proposal automatically takes effect. So, yes, Congress has granted the Secretary authority to act unilaterally.
"Concurrent state and Federal legislative jurisdiction" is operative in all National Forests, where hunting is regulated by state departments of wildlife. (It is also operative in about 75 of the NPS' 400+ units in which hunting is allowed.)
I don't see how the secretary is acting unilaterally if Congress has 60 days to review his/her "proposed" actions. The USC has a review period built in for congressional approval; if Congress doesn't act on the request, it is extending its tacit approval. That doesn't strike me as acting unilaterally. There is a requirement for congressional review; whether Congress acts during that period is another matter.
Protect the Endangered Species Act we have to keep these beautiful animals from extension. It is a bad idea to kill them off. It should be illegal to bait out, trapping ,snares and killing whole families in their own dens. That's not hurting. That is murder. I am a voice for these animals that needs our help. If we don't stand up for the ESA. None of these animals will be able to recover from this killing of innocent animals. NO ONE NEEDS TO KILL ANY ENDANGERED SPECIES ESPECIALLY FOR TROPHY HUNTING FOR THE MONEY. THEY ARE ESSENTIAL TO OUR PARKS AND LAND. PUBLIC LANDS FOR EVERYONE TO SEE THE INNOCENT ANIMALS AND LAND IN THEIR OWN NATURAL HABITAT. WITHOUT OUR ASSISTANCE AND OUR VOICE . THEY ARE NOT SAFE. THE WORST THING ABOUT THIS IS WE ARE INVADING THEIR LIVES AND LAND. STOP THE KILLING OF INNOCENT ANIMALS . THEY DESERVE BETTER THAN THIS
After reading Robin Yoakum's article all I can say to that is this" Amen to that, Robin, you hit the nail on the head. I too, want to see more animals and other wildlife protected, especially in America's parks. I'll never understand how people can trophy hunt and have the gall to call it "conservation" because it's murder plain & simple.
Robin Yoakum, this is not about ESA. None of these species' populations are endangered or threatened within Alaska. None of the proposed regulatory changes (nor the existing Alaska state game regulations with which they would be consistent) are in conflict with the Endangered Species Act. ESA stands.
What a sad day, we must be able to protect those with no voices. We must be able to save and cherish these sites for our future kids and their kids. Over population is one thing, but too use moranic way to hunt is absurd. I love harvesting meat and eating meat and support huntin! We must draw a line somewher!
"Moronic".
You mean to say 'moronic', not 'moranic'. 'Moron' is a word. 'Moran' is an Irish surname.
In my state, Washington State [and no doubt similar elsewhere]:
RCW 9A.32.030
Murder in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when:
(a) With a premeditated intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes the death of such person or of a third person; or
(b) Under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life, he or she engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to any person, and thereby causes the death of a person; or
(c) He or she commits or attempts to commit the crime of either (1) robbery in the first or second degree, (2) rape in the first or second degree, (3) burglary in the first degree, (4) arson in the first or second degree, or (5) kidnapping in the first or second degree, and in the course of or in furtherance of such crime or in immediate flight therefrom, he or she, or another participant, causes the death of a person other than one of the participants: Except that in any prosecution under this subdivision (1)(c) in which the defendant was not the only participant in the underlying crime, if established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, it is a defense that the defendant:
(i) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause, or aid the commission thereof; and
(ii) Was not armed with a deadly weapon, or any instrument, article, or substance readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury; and
(iii) Had no reasonable grounds to believe that any other participant was armed with such a weapon, instrument, article, or substance; and
(iv) Had no reasonable grounds to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious physical injury.
(2) Murder in the first degree is a class A felony.
[ 1990 c 200 § 1; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 3; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.32.030.]
In no place does it say that this includes other animals besides humans. Please stop throwing this term around emotionally. It is jarring to those of us who try to think critically.
If it makes you feel any better Robin, with the exception of the caribou I’m pretty sure none of these animals are “innocent”. They (bears,wolves, coyotes) are all guilty of murdering other beautiful innocent animals.