Wolves, grizzly bears, and other wildlife can be hunted on private inholdings in Grand Teton National Park, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
The ruling stemmed from a National Park Service decision in 2014 that its wildlife regulations did not apply to 2,300 acres of privately or state-owned land inside the park that hugs Wyoming's western border. Among the organizations challenging that interpretation were the National Parks Conservation Association and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, which maintained in a lawsuit that the National Park Service's authority inside national parks extended to private lands within those borders.
“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,” Sharon Mader, NPCA's Grand Teton program manager, said in 2016 when the lawsuit was filed. “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.”
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 November 2014 the Park Service agreed with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department that state laws, not the Park Service's, applied to private inholdings in the park.
For many years we assumed that 36 CFR [§] 2.2 applied on private inholdings within Grand Teton and prohibited the taking of wildlife on those inholdings. While NPS continues its interest in ensuring that wildlife management on private inholdings does not negatively impact park resources, we have concluded that 36 CFR [§] 2.2 does not apply to private inholdings within Grand Teton.
In upholding a lower court's ruling that the Park Service lacked jurisdiction over private and state lands inside Grand Teton, the 10th Circuit last Wednesday agreed with the Park Service's 2014 November determination. Key in the pertinent section of the Federal Code regarding hunting in national parks, 36 C.F.R. § 2.2, is that the Park Service holds jurisdiction only over lands "that are under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States.”
When Grand Teton was expanded in size in 1950, Wyoming's Legislature never ceded its jurisdiction over the private and state inholdings to the federal government, the court pointed out, and so the Park Service never held jurisdiction over those lands within Grand Teton.
“I am most gratified that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that the State of Wyoming has not ceded its authority to the National Park Service regarding inholdings within Grand Teton National Park,” said Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon. “This is a critical underpinning for wildlife management in this part of Wyoming and gives due recognition to joint management and the strong relationship we have with GTNP, which has always been important to Wyoming.”
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.
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
Hunting IS protecting and managing wildlife. Big win for private property and states rights as well as for hunters
Just look for the NPS to prohibit you from taking hides, antlers or meat from hunting on in-holdings across NPS property then, as this would comply with the text of the Court's ruling.
That NPS property you are talking about belongs to WE THE PEOPLE, we just hired NPS to manage it for ys.
This certainly could happen in the 9th Circus.
As a wildlife biologist, I can tell you that wildlife management is just as corrupt as the rest of the government - it's not about helping animals, its not about preserving resources, it's about controlling people and taking away their rights and their private property. There is no such thing as the scientific community, it's all about money. The only research that gets published are the studies that produce the results the people with the money want it to say. The same is true in medicine, pharmacy, etc. YOU are just as wise as any scientific "expert." Maybe wiser.
Excellent and profound comment, I have often wondered how a biologist with a college degree and 20 years of experience could have more sway than a 60-year-old 3rd generation rancher. I have an upper-division college degree and 30 years of experience and you might be surprised at what I don't know.
I have to agree, give one of these officials a badge, or a title, and they become tools of the organization .. its all about controlling people once they put on the badge.. they have the authority, you do what they tell you - in their view, they are serving the greater good, the state, but the 'state', as an organization, is filled with corrupt people, all bent on control.
Another unconstitutional piece of adminstrative law in the way of liberty and public access. How did we ever let this happen!?!
Don Fry..you are spot on. More people need to remember that. It is OUR land, not the NPS
There seem to be a lot of folks taking issue with the National Park Service over this issue. While I'm always suspicious of anything government does or wants to do, in point of fact all three government entities involved did the right thing on their own in this case. The court's ruling addressed a lawsuit brought not by the National Park Service but by a non-government, third-party environmental group, the National Parks Conservation Association. The NPCA sued the federal government, claiming that the National Park Service erred in 2014 when it voluntarily adopted the position that these private lands were not subject to their jurisdiction. The lower court and the 10th circuit correctly ruled that the National Park Service was, in fact, correct. In other words, the National Park Service and both courts got it right for once.
PUt a fence around it and post a guard at the gates to keep animals from entering the inholdings. In a few years they'll sell out or have to cart in their own animals.
Jack's point is exactly spot on and what people should focus on with this decision. It was NPCA and others that brought this court action The NPS was being responsible and responsive. Inholdings create a lot of challenges and issues and it is the on the ground staff that have to manage these issues and nurture the relationships. Not always easy but it can be done and takes years/decades of trust. When groups such as NPCA jump in it sometimes throws off the balance of those relationships. I am not saying everything NPCA does is bad - they do some great things. But, when litigation gets thrown down it raises the stakes significantly.