The Obama administration said Wednesday it will not impose new restrictions on recreational shooting on public lands, a Thanksgiving gift for thousands of gun owners and hunters concerned about a draft plan to limit target shooting near residential areas.
The policy, proposed this summer, could have closed millions of acres of federal land to gun use, a prospect that caused alarm among gun owners, particularly in the West, where target shooting on public land is a longtime tradition. Hunting season for deer and other game begins around Thanksgiving in many states.
Officials said they were trying to ensure public safety in rapidly growing areas of the West, where some residents have clashed with gun owners who use public lands for target practice.
In a memo obtained by The Associated Press, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department supports opportunities for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting on federal land.
"By facilitating access, multiple use and safe activities on public lands, the Bureau of Land Management helps ensure that the vast majority of the 245 million acres it oversees are open and remain open to recreational shooting," he wrote.
The memo directs BLM Director Bob Abbey to "take no further action to develop or implement" the draft policy on recreational shooting.
Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., who had sharply criticized the earlier proposal, said Wednesday he was glad the Obama administration had reversed course.
"But it would be a lot better for everyone if they stopped doing things to restrict gun rights that require them to back off in the first place," said Rehberg, a frequent Obama critic who is challenging incumbent Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., next year.
"One thing is sure: You can't blink with these guys or they'll slip something through," Rehberg added in an email.
The BLM said in announcing the draft policy on recreational shooting that many areas previously used for target practice are now too close to houses or other development. By 2020, such "hot spots" were projected in all 48 continental states, the BLM said.
The BLM draft plan would have provided gun owners with a map of nearby areas suitable for target practice.
The Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council, an advisory committee of conservationists and outdoors groups, expressed concern over the draft plan. Instead of restricting recreational shooting, the government should provide improvements for safe shooting such as berms, benches and target holders, the group said.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
GOA on the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill
The House passed national concealed carry reciprocity legislation on Wednesday evening by a vote of 272-154.
The bill, H.R. 822, is intended to allow persons who hold a concealed carry permit from one state to also carry anywhere in the country, with the exception of Illinois and Washington, D.C.
Though the bill passed by a wide margin, it was not without controversy on the pro-gun side of the debate. In previous alerts, GOA has pointed out several flaws in the legislation.
* It forces Vermont residents (who do not need a permit to carry) to either obtain an out-of-state permit or to push their state to pass a more restrictive concealed carry law than it now enjoys;
* By requiring permits for reciprocity, the bill undermines efforts at the state level to pass constitutional carry (i.e., Vermont-style carry);
* In restrictive “may issue” states, the bill allows for non-residents to carry firearms in the state while most residents would still be prohibited, and;
* The bill is yet another example of Congress distorting of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
Representative Justin Amash (R-MI), who voted against the bill, addressed this last point in a statement, calling H.R. 822 “an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing.”
Another freshman Representative, Rob Woodall (R-GA), noted that the right to carry a concealed firearm is already protected by the Second Amendment.
“If the Second Amendment protects my rights to carry my concealed weapon from state to state to state, I don’t need another federal law,” Rep. Woodall said. He went on to remind his colleagues of the original intent of the right to keep and bear arms.
“I don’t believe the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to allow me to shoot targets [or] hunt for deer and turkey. I think the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights so that I could defend my freedom against an overbearing federal government.”
Anti-gun Amendment Passes
One extremely troubling amendment to the bill was slipped in on a voice vote. Sponsored by Republican David Reichert (“C” rated by GOA), the amendment instructs the Government Accounting Office to:
“Conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.”
Nowhere in the Constitution is there even a hint of authority for the federal government to “study” the exercising of a right. Even worse, you can be sure that anti-gunners will use any excuse, including this study, to push for some type of national carry license.
The bill now heads to the Senate, where GOA is already working with key Senators to address ALL of the problems with the bill. GOA is also working with Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) on legislation, H.R. 2900, that takes a constitutional approach to concealed carry recognition.
You can click below to send you own Representative a message urging him or her to become a cosponsor of H.R. 2900.
Click Here to Send Your Representative a prewritten email message
The bill, H.R. 822, is intended to allow persons who hold a concealed carry permit from one state to also carry anywhere in the country, with the exception of Illinois and Washington, D.C.
Though the bill passed by a wide margin, it was not without controversy on the pro-gun side of the debate. In previous alerts, GOA has pointed out several flaws in the legislation.
* It forces Vermont residents (who do not need a permit to carry) to either obtain an out-of-state permit or to push their state to pass a more restrictive concealed carry law than it now enjoys;
* By requiring permits for reciprocity, the bill undermines efforts at the state level to pass constitutional carry (i.e., Vermont-style carry);
* In restrictive “may issue” states, the bill allows for non-residents to carry firearms in the state while most residents would still be prohibited, and;
* The bill is yet another example of Congress distorting of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
Representative Justin Amash (R-MI), who voted against the bill, addressed this last point in a statement, calling H.R. 822 “an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing.”
Another freshman Representative, Rob Woodall (R-GA), noted that the right to carry a concealed firearm is already protected by the Second Amendment.
“If the Second Amendment protects my rights to carry my concealed weapon from state to state to state, I don’t need another federal law,” Rep. Woodall said. He went on to remind his colleagues of the original intent of the right to keep and bear arms.
“I don’t believe the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to allow me to shoot targets [or] hunt for deer and turkey. I think the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights so that I could defend my freedom against an overbearing federal government.”
Anti-gun Amendment Passes
One extremely troubling amendment to the bill was slipped in on a voice vote. Sponsored by Republican David Reichert (“C” rated by GOA), the amendment instructs the Government Accounting Office to:
“Conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.”
Nowhere in the Constitution is there even a hint of authority for the federal government to “study” the exercising of a right. Even worse, you can be sure that anti-gunners will use any excuse, including this study, to push for some type of national carry license.
The bill now heads to the Senate, where GOA is already working with key Senators to address ALL of the problems with the bill. GOA is also working with Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) on legislation, H.R. 2900, that takes a constitutional approach to concealed carry recognition.
You can click below to send you own Representative a message urging him or her to become a cosponsor of H.R. 2900.
Click Here to Send Your Representative a prewritten email message
Shooters Heard: Interior Will Not Ban Target Practice
Under fire from gun owners concerned about draft guidelines that could limit areas for target practice on western public lands, the Interior Department today said it would make sure shooters still have access to lands long available for firearms recreation.
"Our goal is to leave lands open to shooting," said an Interior official for the Bureau of Land Management, which is drafting guidelines to deal with the growing clash between skittish urbanites moving to western wilderness areas and America's tradition of letting gun owners shoot targets on public lands.
"We don't want to have to close any areas," said an official as BLM provided Washington Whispers with a statement clarifying the developing guidelines.
"We are in no way interested in banning recreational target shooting, hunting, or fishing—on the contrary, our goal is to develop guidance that will help land managers maximize and preserve opportunities for recreational shooting," said the BLM statement.
However, the official said it is possible that areas previously used for target practice that are too close to houses or areas of urban growth could be put off limits. The new plan would be to provide shooters with a map or guide on where they can go for target practice nearby, said the official.
"It's the difference of driving two minutes [to shoot] or 15 minutes," said the official.
Whispers reported on the controversy yesterday. A committee of conservationists and outdoors groups advising BLM has expressed outrage over the developing guidelines, charging that BLM is making it hard for shooters to practice on public lands, which has a long tradition in the West. The Interior official said that the committee's concerns will be addressed in a "redraft" of the guidelines.
The story, promoted on the Drudge Report and Fox Nation, had gun owners up in arms.
Below is the full BLM statement to Whispers:
The Department of the Interior fully supports and encourages hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on America's public lands. Nearly 400,000 hunters visit Bureau of Land Management lands every year, generating an estimated $785 million in economic output. The vast majority of BLM's 245 million acres is open to recreational shooting, and we want to keep it that way.
The BLM wants to protect opportunities for recreational shooting on public lands and reduce the possibility for conflicts that in the past have resulted in some recreational shooting closures. That is why we are currently working with the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council (WHHCC)—which includes representatives from sportsmen's organizations, the outdoor recreation industry, state resource agencies and others—to develop guidance to protect long-term access to recreational target shooting.
We are at the early stages of our work with the WHHCC and will be guided by their input and recommendations. We are in no way interested in banning recreational target shooting, hunting, or fishing—on the contrary, our goal is to develop guidance that will help land managers maximize and preserve opportunities for recreational shooting. It is important to note that hunting and fishing on public lands is managed by state fish and game agencies—and is not the subject of these discussions.
"Our goal is to leave lands open to shooting," said an Interior official for the Bureau of Land Management, which is drafting guidelines to deal with the growing clash between skittish urbanites moving to western wilderness areas and America's tradition of letting gun owners shoot targets on public lands.
"We don't want to have to close any areas," said an official as BLM provided Washington Whispers with a statement clarifying the developing guidelines.
"We are in no way interested in banning recreational target shooting, hunting, or fishing—on the contrary, our goal is to develop guidance that will help land managers maximize and preserve opportunities for recreational shooting," said the BLM statement.
However, the official said it is possible that areas previously used for target practice that are too close to houses or areas of urban growth could be put off limits. The new plan would be to provide shooters with a map or guide on where they can go for target practice nearby, said the official.
"It's the difference of driving two minutes [to shoot] or 15 minutes," said the official.
Whispers reported on the controversy yesterday. A committee of conservationists and outdoors groups advising BLM has expressed outrage over the developing guidelines, charging that BLM is making it hard for shooters to practice on public lands, which has a long tradition in the West. The Interior official said that the committee's concerns will be addressed in a "redraft" of the guidelines.
The story, promoted on the Drudge Report and Fox Nation, had gun owners up in arms.
Below is the full BLM statement to Whispers:
The Department of the Interior fully supports and encourages hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on America's public lands. Nearly 400,000 hunters visit Bureau of Land Management lands every year, generating an estimated $785 million in economic output. The vast majority of BLM's 245 million acres is open to recreational shooting, and we want to keep it that way.
The BLM wants to protect opportunities for recreational shooting on public lands and reduce the possibility for conflicts that in the past have resulted in some recreational shooting closures. That is why we are currently working with the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council (WHHCC)—which includes representatives from sportsmen's organizations, the outdoor recreation industry, state resource agencies and others—to develop guidance to protect long-term access to recreational target shooting.
We are at the early stages of our work with the WHHCC and will be guided by their input and recommendations. We are in no way interested in banning recreational target shooting, hunting, or fishing—on the contrary, our goal is to develop guidance that will help land managers maximize and preserve opportunities for recreational shooting. It is important to note that hunting and fishing on public lands is managed by state fish and game agencies—and is not the subject of these discussions.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands
Gun owners who have historically been able to use public lands for target practice would be barred from potentially millions of acres under new rules drafted by the Interior Department, the first major move by the Obama administration to impose limits on firearms.
Officials say the administration is concerned about the potential clash between gun owners and encroaching urban populations who like to use same land for hiking and dog walking.
"It's not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue," said Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with Interior's Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres. He adds that urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands.
If the draft policy is finally approved, some public access to Bureau lands to hunters would also be limited, potentially reducing areas deer, elk, and bear hunters can use in the West.
Conservationists and hunting groups, however, are mounting a fight. One elite group of conservationists that advises Interior and Agriculture is already pushing BLM to junk the regulations, claiming that shooters are being held to a much higher safety standard than other users of public lands, such as ATV riders.
"They are just trying to make it so difficult for recreational shooters," said Gary Kania, vice president of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. His group is one of several, including the National Wildlife Foundation, Cabela's and Ducks Unlimited, on the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council fighting the new rules. During a two-day meeting ending this afternoon, they are drafting their own changes to the BLM rules.
"What we probably are going to be looking forward to is a reversal," said Kania. Asked about how to handle people who freak out when they hear shots on public lands, Kania said, "I don't know how to quanitify 'freaking out,'" and noted that he's seen people panicing when fly fishing in float tubes but nobody wants to ban then from rivers.
BLM actually invited the fight, seeking the council's comments. But officials suggested to Whispers that no changes are being planned to the draft regulations.
Over five pages, the draft BLM regulations raise concerns about how shooting can cause a "public disturbance." They also raise worries about how shooting and shooters can hurt plants and litter public lands.
This is the key paragraph foes say could lead to shooters being kicked off public lands:
"When the authorized officer determines that a site or area on BLM-managed lands used on a regular basis for recreational shooting is creating public disturbance, or is creating risk to other persons on public lands; is contributing to the defacement, removal or destruction of natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property; is facilitating or creating a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property is violating existing use restrictions, closure and restriction orders, or supplementary rules notices, and reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unsuccessful, the authorized officer will close the affected area to recreational shooting."
Squeezing out shooters, says the draft policy, is needed because, "As the West has become more populated, recreational shooters now often find themselves in conflict with other public lands users, and the BLM is frequently called on to mediate these conflicts."
At yesterday's meeting at Interior, the council balked at the BLM draft regulations, adding that the Obama administration was not being fair to shooters on the issue of safety.
In a draft retort to BLM, the council said other users of public land aren't required to be as safe as shooters. They note that shooters have a much lower injury rate than others, like ATV users. "The policy fails to recognize that recreational shooting has one of the lowest incidences of death and injury compared to virtually any other outdoor recreational activity. The policy is prejudicial and discriminatory to target shooters as compared to other recreationists," said the council's draft response, expected to be finalized today.
What's more, the group charged that the BLM is acting in a contradictory fashion, encouraging the shooting sports while limiting shooting areas.
Officials say the administration is concerned about the potential clash between gun owners and encroaching urban populations who like to use same land for hiking and dog walking.
"It's not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue," said Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with Interior's Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres. He adds that urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands.
If the draft policy is finally approved, some public access to Bureau lands to hunters would also be limited, potentially reducing areas deer, elk, and bear hunters can use in the West.
Conservationists and hunting groups, however, are mounting a fight. One elite group of conservationists that advises Interior and Agriculture is already pushing BLM to junk the regulations, claiming that shooters are being held to a much higher safety standard than other users of public lands, such as ATV riders.
"They are just trying to make it so difficult for recreational shooters," said Gary Kania, vice president of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. His group is one of several, including the National Wildlife Foundation, Cabela's and Ducks Unlimited, on the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council fighting the new rules. During a two-day meeting ending this afternoon, they are drafting their own changes to the BLM rules.
"What we probably are going to be looking forward to is a reversal," said Kania. Asked about how to handle people who freak out when they hear shots on public lands, Kania said, "I don't know how to quanitify 'freaking out,'" and noted that he's seen people panicing when fly fishing in float tubes but nobody wants to ban then from rivers.
BLM actually invited the fight, seeking the council's comments. But officials suggested to Whispers that no changes are being planned to the draft regulations.
Over five pages, the draft BLM regulations raise concerns about how shooting can cause a "public disturbance." They also raise worries about how shooting and shooters can hurt plants and litter public lands.
This is the key paragraph foes say could lead to shooters being kicked off public lands:
"When the authorized officer determines that a site or area on BLM-managed lands used on a regular basis for recreational shooting is creating public disturbance, or is creating risk to other persons on public lands; is contributing to the defacement, removal or destruction of natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property; is facilitating or creating a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property is violating existing use restrictions, closure and restriction orders, or supplementary rules notices, and reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unsuccessful, the authorized officer will close the affected area to recreational shooting."
Squeezing out shooters, says the draft policy, is needed because, "As the West has become more populated, recreational shooters now often find themselves in conflict with other public lands users, and the BLM is frequently called on to mediate these conflicts."
At yesterday's meeting at Interior, the council balked at the BLM draft regulations, adding that the Obama administration was not being fair to shooters on the issue of safety.
In a draft retort to BLM, the council said other users of public land aren't required to be as safe as shooters. They note that shooters have a much lower injury rate than others, like ATV users. "The policy fails to recognize that recreational shooting has one of the lowest incidences of death and injury compared to virtually any other outdoor recreational activity. The policy is prejudicial and discriminatory to target shooters as compared to other recreationists," said the council's draft response, expected to be finalized today.
What's more, the group charged that the BLM is acting in a contradictory fashion, encouraging the shooting sports while limiting shooting areas.
U.S. House Passes National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation
The U.S. House of Representatives has passed an important self-defense measure that would enable millions of Right-to-Carry permit holders across the country to carry concealed firearms while traveling outside their home states. H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, passed by a majority bipartisan vote of 272 to 154. All amendments aimed to weaken or damage the integrity of this bill were defeated.
“NRA has made the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act a priority because it enhances the fundamental right to self-defense guaranteed to all law-abiding people,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “People are not immune from crime when they cross state lines. That is why it is vital for them to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones should the need arise.”
H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), allows any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes.
This bill does not affect existing state laws. State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within each state’s borders. H.R. 822 does not create a federal licensing system or impose federal standards on state permits; rather, it requires the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.
As of today, 49 states have laws in place that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some form. Only Illinois and the District of Columbia deny its residents the right to carry concealed firearms outside their homes or businesses for self-defense.
“We are grateful for the support of Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority Whip McCarthy, Judiciary Chairman Smith and primary sponsors Congressmen Stearns and Shuler for their steadfast support of H.R. 822. Thanks to the persistence of millions of American gun owners and NRA members, Congress has moved one step closer to improving crucial self-defense laws in this country,” concluded Cox.
“NRA has made the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act a priority because it enhances the fundamental right to self-defense guaranteed to all law-abiding people,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “People are not immune from crime when they cross state lines. That is why it is vital for them to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones should the need arise.”
H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), allows any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes.
This bill does not affect existing state laws. State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within each state’s borders. H.R. 822 does not create a federal licensing system or impose federal standards on state permits; rather, it requires the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.
As of today, 49 states have laws in place that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some form. Only Illinois and the District of Columbia deny its residents the right to carry concealed firearms outside their homes or businesses for self-defense.
“We are grateful for the support of Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority Whip McCarthy, Judiciary Chairman Smith and primary sponsors Congressmen Stearns and Shuler for their steadfast support of H.R. 822. Thanks to the persistence of millions of American gun owners and NRA members, Congress has moved one step closer to improving crucial self-defense laws in this country,” concluded Cox.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Advocates take Idaho, Mont. wolf hunts to court; hunters have shot almost 170 since August
Wildlife advocates appeared in federal court Tuesday seeking to stop gray wolf hunts that are already well under way in the Northern Rockies, arguing that Congress overstepped its authority in stripping federal protections from the canines.
Federal biologists say the wolf population is healthy enough to support the hunts in Idaho and Montana. The two states want to drive down the predators' numbers to curb their attacks on livestock and big game herds.
But wildlife advocates say too many wolves are being shot too quickly, threatening to unravel the species' decades-long recovery and killing animals closely followed by wolf watchers.
Almost 170 wolves have been shot since hunting began in late August.
"The longer the hunting season goes on, the more risk to the population in total," said James "Jay" Tutchton, an attorney who spoke on behalf of WildEarth Guardians, one of the groups that sued Interior Secretary Ken Salazar after wolves lost their federal protections.
The hunts were allowed after Congress last spring took the unprecedented step of stripping endangered species protections from more than 1,300 wolves. That prompted a lawsuit from wildlife advocates who say Congress effectively reversed prior court rulings that favored protections for the animals.
Tuesday's hearing was before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, Calif.
The 9th Circuit agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis. But several groups involved in the lawsuit requested an injunction to stop the killing of wolves while the case is pending. It is not clear when a decision will be issued, though two previous requests for injunctions were denied.
Anna M. Seidman, with Safari Club International, said hunters are being careful and do not want to see wolves returned to the endangered species list. Seidman's group, along with the National Rifle Association and other sporting groups, have intervened in the case on the side of the federal government.
"Hunters are conservationists," she said. "The whole idea behind hunting is sustainable use to make sure they're here now and remain there for many generations."
Tuesday's hearing marks the latest in two decades of courtroom battles over wolves. Gray wolf advocates, including members of Shadowland Foundation, stood outside the courthouse carrying signs saying "We love wolves" and even brought two pet wolves.
Prior lawsuits resulted first in the animals' reintroduction to the region and then later kept them on the endangered list for a decade after the species had reached the government's original recovery goal.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is monitoring the hunts, but agency officials said they have no plans to intervene because wolves have recovered in the region and the states have promised to manage them responsibly.
"The longer the hunting season goes on, the more risk to the population in total," said James "Jay" Tutchton, an attorney who spoke on behalf of WildEarth Guardians, one of the groups that sued Interior Secretary Ken Salazar after wolves lost their federal protections.
Montana's quota aims to reduce wolf numbers by 25 percent compared with last year, to 425 animals. Bob Lane, chief legal counsel for the state, said wildlife officials "fully intend to manage them as a viable species."
Idaho officials have said only that they plan to maintain at least 150 wolves, out of a current population of at least 700 animals.
So far this year, wolves in Montana and Idaho have killed 152 cattle and calves, 108 sheep, 12 dogs and three horses, according to confirmed kill tallies provided by state and federal officials.
Even without hunting, wolves are shot regularly in the region in response to livestock attacks. At least 103 of the predators had been killed this year by government wildlife agents and ranchers.
Federal officials have pledged to step in to restore endangered species protections if wolf numbers drop below 100 animals in either state.
Attorneys for the federal government said that safety valve undercuts the plaintiffs' contention that the hunts could cause irreparable harm.
In documents filed with the court in advance of Tuesday's hearing, the government attorneys wrote that an injunction would be an extraordinary step for the court to take and that the plaintiffs "come nowhere close to meeting the test."
They also argued that Congress was within its bounds to act on the issue, because lawmakers were told by government scientists that wolves were biologically recovered.
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead recently struck a deal with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that could allow wolf hunting in that state by sometime next year.
Legislation introduced by Wyoming's congressional delegation could speed up that process, in the same way as the budget bill rider that lifted protections for wolves in Idaho and Montana.
But Noah Greenwald, the endangered species director for one of the litigants, the Center for Biological Diversity, called it a "terrible precedent" in which politicians instead of scientists make decisions about endangered animals.
"It sets this precedent where Congress shows they're capable and willing to step in when a species becomes politically unpopular in a particular state," he said.
___
Brown reported from Billings, Mont.
Federal biologists say the wolf population is healthy enough to support the hunts in Idaho and Montana. The two states want to drive down the predators' numbers to curb their attacks on livestock and big game herds.
But wildlife advocates say too many wolves are being shot too quickly, threatening to unravel the species' decades-long recovery and killing animals closely followed by wolf watchers.
Almost 170 wolves have been shot since hunting began in late August.
"The longer the hunting season goes on, the more risk to the population in total," said James "Jay" Tutchton, an attorney who spoke on behalf of WildEarth Guardians, one of the groups that sued Interior Secretary Ken Salazar after wolves lost their federal protections.
The hunts were allowed after Congress last spring took the unprecedented step of stripping endangered species protections from more than 1,300 wolves. That prompted a lawsuit from wildlife advocates who say Congress effectively reversed prior court rulings that favored protections for the animals.
Tuesday's hearing was before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, Calif.
The 9th Circuit agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis. But several groups involved in the lawsuit requested an injunction to stop the killing of wolves while the case is pending. It is not clear when a decision will be issued, though two previous requests for injunctions were denied.
Anna M. Seidman, with Safari Club International, said hunters are being careful and do not want to see wolves returned to the endangered species list. Seidman's group, along with the National Rifle Association and other sporting groups, have intervened in the case on the side of the federal government.
"Hunters are conservationists," she said. "The whole idea behind hunting is sustainable use to make sure they're here now and remain there for many generations."
Tuesday's hearing marks the latest in two decades of courtroom battles over wolves. Gray wolf advocates, including members of Shadowland Foundation, stood outside the courthouse carrying signs saying "We love wolves" and even brought two pet wolves.
Prior lawsuits resulted first in the animals' reintroduction to the region and then later kept them on the endangered list for a decade after the species had reached the government's original recovery goal.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is monitoring the hunts, but agency officials said they have no plans to intervene because wolves have recovered in the region and the states have promised to manage them responsibly.
"The longer the hunting season goes on, the more risk to the population in total," said James "Jay" Tutchton, an attorney who spoke on behalf of WildEarth Guardians, one of the groups that sued Interior Secretary Ken Salazar after wolves lost their federal protections.
Montana's quota aims to reduce wolf numbers by 25 percent compared with last year, to 425 animals. Bob Lane, chief legal counsel for the state, said wildlife officials "fully intend to manage them as a viable species."
Idaho officials have said only that they plan to maintain at least 150 wolves, out of a current population of at least 700 animals.
So far this year, wolves in Montana and Idaho have killed 152 cattle and calves, 108 sheep, 12 dogs and three horses, according to confirmed kill tallies provided by state and federal officials.
Even without hunting, wolves are shot regularly in the region in response to livestock attacks. At least 103 of the predators had been killed this year by government wildlife agents and ranchers.
Federal officials have pledged to step in to restore endangered species protections if wolf numbers drop below 100 animals in either state.
Attorneys for the federal government said that safety valve undercuts the plaintiffs' contention that the hunts could cause irreparable harm.
In documents filed with the court in advance of Tuesday's hearing, the government attorneys wrote that an injunction would be an extraordinary step for the court to take and that the plaintiffs "come nowhere close to meeting the test."
They also argued that Congress was within its bounds to act on the issue, because lawmakers were told by government scientists that wolves were biologically recovered.
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead recently struck a deal with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that could allow wolf hunting in that state by sometime next year.
Legislation introduced by Wyoming's congressional delegation could speed up that process, in the same way as the budget bill rider that lifted protections for wolves in Idaho and Montana.
But Noah Greenwald, the endangered species director for one of the litigants, the Center for Biological Diversity, called it a "terrible precedent" in which politicians instead of scientists make decisions about endangered animals.
"It sets this precedent where Congress shows they're capable and willing to step in when a species becomes politically unpopular in a particular state," he said.
___
Brown reported from Billings, Mont.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
