Despite Trump overturning refuge hunting rules, conflict remains

Although Congress put an end to a set of federal restrictions on wildlife management on national wildlife refuges in Alaska, the underlying conflict is far from over.

President Donald Trump signed a House Joint Resolution on Tuesday overturning a set of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations enacted in 2016. The rule restricted certain hunting methods on national wildlife refuges in Alaska, with additional specific rules for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Under the rule, predator control activities were banned unless based on sound science and in response to a conservation concern or met refuge need. On the Kenai, additional public use restrictions went into place, including some plane and motorboat access, camping restrictions and requiring a permit for baiting black bears and prohibiting using a dog to hunt big game except black bears, among other rules.

The state filed a lawsuit in January against the Department of the Interior over the Fish and Wildlife rules and another set of hunting restrictions set by the National Park Service in Alaska’s national preserves. The Safari Club International, a hunting organization, filed a similar lawsuit of its own about a week later. A few days after that, the Alaska Professional Hunting Association filed its own lawsuit over the same regulations.

“Passage of this resolution reaffirms our state sovereignty, and the state’s authority to manage fish and wildlife statewide, including on federal public lands,” said Alaska Attorney General Jahna Lindemuth in a news release issued Tuesday. “Alaskans depend on wildlife for food. Reversal of these regulations will allow residents to continue their hunting and gathering traditions.”

Despite the overturn, there’s still a sharp philosophical management disagreement between federal wildlife managers and state wildlife managers, and unless one side’s mandate changes, the disagreement will remain. Fish and Wildlife manages the national wildlife refuges for natural biological diversity, without promoting prey species over predators. Fish and Game, on the other hand, is mandated to manage for maximum sustained yield, which would provide enough harvestable animals to provide for hunters. The National Park Service protects the lands it manages and all the wildlife on them, prohibiting hunting entirely on national preserves.

Stacey said the group contests that by bypassing the state’s game management authority, the refuge and national park rules effectively amend the state’s constitution.

“(The state constitution) is where you get the maximum sustained yield management rules,” he said. “Within (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act), it says nothing is supposed to modify or amend the state’s constitution. We argue that whrere the federal government steps in and imposes a foreign management philosophy, that actually effectively amends the state’s constitution.”

The three agencies cooperate on management issues, but there have been times over the years when the Board of Game or Fish and Game crossed a line and trigged a reaction from the feds. A recent example was when the Board of Game authorized the taking of brown bears over bait on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, said Board of Game chairman Ted Spraker.

“We allowed the taking of brown bears over bait in 2013, and the refuge immediately said, ‘Not on the refuge,’” he said. “That hasn’t changed.”

There are management tools built in, such as an overall quota for brown bears taken in the area before the season closes, he said. The refuge allows baiting for black bears in an area of Game Management Unit 15A but put brown bears off limits, which seemed inconsistent, he said.

The National Park Service regulations are still in place, so the lawsuits will go on with those challenges, and the regulations on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge are still in place, so the Safari Club’s lawsuit will still challenge those.

“It has more to do with not ceding authority to the federal systems compared to whether the department and the Board of Game will change things that we’re currently doing,” Spraker said. “I don’t see any major changes coming because of this, I think there will be a little more cooperation on some of the issues, but I don’t see the refuges embracing any sort of predator management because of this.”

The overturning of the rule must be frustrating for the agency, though, said Michelle Sinnott, an attorney with environmental law firm Trustees for Alaska, which represents a group of conservation organizations that petitioned to intervene in the three lawsuits and have been granted intervener status in the Safari Club and Alaska Professional Hunters Association lawsuits.

“It’s maddening to a sense and I’m sure it’s very frustrating for federal agencies, because the Congressional Review Act takes a sledgehammer to agencies’ years of work and communications with the public and public noticing comment and meetings with people in the region,” she said.

ANILCA has a role to play too. The act, passed in 1980, affected about 157 million acres of federal land in Alaska and changed management for others, including converting the Kenai National Moose Range into the current Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Its baseline principles include the provision of managing for natural diversity, and so even with the 2016 rules changed, with ANILCA still in place, the conflict still stands between federal management of wildlife on federal land and state sovereignty.

“That question is still alive and well and we’ll be part of it now,” Sinnott said. “It’s great that our intervention was granted, because now there’s a whole host of Alaskan voices that will be heard in these cases.”

Once the debate moved to the national level, the groups supporting Fish and Wildlife’s rule received support from members of Congress who saw problems with the rules themselves and with the state asserting its right to manage wildlife on federal lands, said Pat Lavin with the Alaska office of conservation group Defenders of Wildlife.

“To have any state kind of challenge that and claim that the state has the right to do whatever it wants … I think plenty of members of Congress saw that right away and that was all the noise,” he said. “Unfortunately, we lost the vote anyway. There’s plenty of folks in Congress who understand that and aren’t crazy about it but were willing to undo this regulation.”

Lavin agreed that ANILCA would help reinforce current management practices. Refuges around the country don’t always follow the strict state regulations, he said.

“It is true, and not only in Alaska but around the whole country, that as a general proposition in managing refuge lands, the Fish and Wildlife Service defer at least initially to the place they’re in, in a given refuge,” he said. “That’s kind of the default position, but on top of that, the refuge does things all the time that are specific to the refuge and may or may not be consistent with state regulations.”

Spraker said he was optimistic that with the new federal administration, a new Department of the Interior director and a new Alaska regional supervisor of the Fish and Wildlife Service, state and federal managers could collaborate on management more.

“I don’t think this is going to make a major change in how we do business, but I do think it’s going to increase the level of collaboration between the state and federal agencies,” he said. “And with new leadership, I think that will lend itself toward cooperation with the state.”

15 thoughts on “Despite Trump overturning refuge hunting rules, conflict remains

  1. I wish I could be more optimistic. But with Trump in the White House and a Republican-controlled Congress, I remain skeptical. The terrible methods of hunting now allowed and the fact that some states are trying to amend their constitution to declare that hunting and trapping are rights and beyond challenges and referenda (to counter objections to practices such as using snares and steel-jaw traps in refuges, etc.) make is seem the conservatives were ready and primed for these changes.

    There is also the complaint by Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming that the Endangered Species Act is not working because “states, counties, wildlife managers, home builders, construction companies, farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders” say it impedes their management plans (Washington Post, March 1, 2017).

    Excuse me, but why should the Endangered Species Bill have to take account of the welfare of ranchers, farmers, home builders, and construction companies? They’re part of the reason that some species are endangered!

    Similarly, Ryan Zinke, Trump’s choice for Secretary of the Interior (who is known as an avid hunter) “understands how federal regulations on the cultivation of coal, natural gas, and minerals on public lands can hurt corporate revenue and reduce jobs.” (Washington Post, March 1, 2017)

    Maybe the feds and Alaska can work something out. But, sadly, the spirit of Gifford Pinchot keeps winning over that of John Muir. The wild lands and the wild lives are just viewed as resources and grist for the mills of Business.

  2. What I am still waiting for is more spunk from environmental organizations. We have been supporting these organizations, why are they not doing anything? Everything they deliver is an anemic reaction to a blow by Republicans. Do we not have one organization that can do anything more constructive?!

  3. The reality is that protecting the environment, the animals and their habitat will never get easier it will get harder. The question is, what are we going about it? For eight year, the environmental organization have been relaxing, collecting the donations and playing golf. The Greenpeace even started organizing protests for Michael Brown, essentially closing the chapter on their environmental activities.
    All that time the far right continued a consistent and methodical re-programming of their offspring, and many of the voters, to desensitize them to the suffering of animals.
    I am a single individual and I do more talking to friends and colleagues about the problems than the groups that are supposed to do that. It is time for someone to stop all these knee jerk reactions when it is too late.

    • Good for you.

      I think the environmental organizations started backing down after the emphasis on overpopulation became taboo. They didn’t want to alienate potential members, especially corporate ones.

      What is really deplorable is how some of the conservation groups caved in while they were supposed to be dealing with environmental issues in places like Africa. Yet they agreed with sustainable use, collaboration with loggers, etc. Logging roads and work crews opened more forest, which led to more bushmeat poaching, among other things. Very discouraging. They are busier looking after their bottom line than animals or lands.

  4. They’re giving all kinds of reassurances, but what if poachers go ahead as they always do, and will they not be charged for killing hibernating bears in dens, etc? And baiting too – what lazy tactics for hunting. Depending on wildlife for food? More like parasitism.

    • Some conservation groups are getting desperate over the poaching of gorillas and chimps. Other “conservation” organizations, such as the WWF, have helped it along by supporting logging. With friends like them, etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s