| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ringangleclaw
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 1559 | TRs | Pics
|
| cartman wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | why not simply allow "open season" on the goats for a few years |
Becaaause...most of them are in a National Park? |
You do know that hunting is not specifically prohibited in NPs? It is allows in GTNP,
TRNP, many locales in Alaska and most National Recreational Areas and Preserves.
I don’t know if it requires congress, the Superintendent or the SoI to allow it.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
 Wed May 09, 2018 7:03 pm |
|
|
| Ringangleclaw wrote: | | cartman wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | why not simply allow "open season" on the goats for a few years |
Becaaause...most of them are in a National Park? |
You do know that hunting is not specifically prohibited in NPs? It is allows in GTNP,
TRNP, many locales in Alaska and most National Recreational Areas and Preserves.
I don’t know if it requires congress, the Superintendent or the SoI to allow it. |
Obviously -- the current plan calls for shooting goats as well -- but that will be done by paid staff, rather than volunteers. Seems like this could be managed under the "volunteers in parks" program -- they already use that to train and deploy "Meadow Rovers" and other activities like trail maintenance, ski patrol, etc.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbatku
Questionable hiker
Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 3330 | TRs | Pics
Location: Yaquima |
|
kbatku
Questionable hiker
|
Wed May 09, 2018 7:30 pm |
|
|
Probably cost $50,000 each to relocate, under a dollar to shoot. Heck, we could hire Sarah Palin & have her cap them from helicopters, sell the video and make a profit
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ringangleclaw
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 1559 | TRs | Pics
|
| kbatku wrote: | | Heck, we could hire Sarah Palin & have her cap them from helicopters, sell the video and make a profit |
That would be hot.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Wed May 09, 2018 8:49 pm |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | "...why not simply allow "open season" on the goats..." |
RodF addressed that question previously in the thread somewhere.
It would provide the most expedient remedy to the issue, though.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hbb
Member
Joined: 06 Aug 2009
Posts: 406 | TRs | Pics
|
|
hbb
Member
|
Thu May 10, 2018 9:30 am |
|
|
| Ringangleclaw wrote: | | cartman wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | why not simply allow "open season" on the goats for a few years |
Becaaause...most of them are in a National Park? |
You do know that hunting is not specifically prohibited in NPs? It is allows in GTNP,
TRNP, many locales in Alaska and most National Recreational Areas and Preserves.
I don’t know if it requires congress, the Superintendent or the SoI to allow it. |
It requires Congressional action. When Grand Teton National Park was created, the enabling legislation specifically called for the implementation of an elk management plan jointly managed by NPS and WYG&FC, with hunting expressly identified as a population control measure: https://www.nps.gov/grte/learn/management/upload/Grand-Teton-NP-enabling-legislation_9-14-1950.pdf
The enabling legislation for ONP has no such similar provision. NPS therefore has no authority to allow hunting in ONP.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Foist
Sultan of Sweat
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 3974 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back! |
|
Foist
Sultan of Sweat
|
Thu May 10, 2018 9:51 am |
|
|
| andypandy wrote: | | Non-native species with a high mortality rate anyway. |
Yeah very high. 100%, as I understand it.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ringangleclaw
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 1559 | TRs | Pics
|
| hbb wrote: | | It requires Congressional action. When Grand Teton National Park was created, the enabling legislation specifically called for the implementation of an elk management plan jointly managed by NPS and WYG&FC, with hunting expressly identified as a population control measure: https://www.nps.gov/grte/learn/management/upload/Grand-Teton-NP-enabling-legislation_9-14-1950.pdf
The enabling legislation for ONP has no such similar provision. NPS therefore has no authority to allow hunting in ONP. |
Thanks for that. I guess it would be too much to ask or expect for Congress to grant that authority because given this congress and administration it seems like you'd be letting a genie out of the bottle.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RodF
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA |
|
RodF
Member
|
Thu May 10, 2018 11:06 am |
|
|
| hbb wrote: | | The enabling legislation for ONP has no such similar provision. NPS therefore has no authority to allow hunting in ONP. |
Correct. But read that statute again: 16 USC §256b. “All hunting or the killing, wounding, or capturing at any time of any wild bird or animal, except dangerous animals when it is necessary to prevent them from destroying human lives or inflicting personal injury, is prohibited within the limits of the park".
This prohibits the planned actions, to capture half the goats and kill the rest.
This plan relies on the authority granted in NPS Organic Act (54 USC 100752, was 16 USC 3 section 3) "The Secretary may provide for the destruction of such animals and of such plant life as may be detrimental to the use of any national park unit". This "shall, to the extent that those provisions are not in conflict with any such specific provision, be applicable to System units" (54 USC 100755). However, it is in conflict with this unit's establishment legislation, so doesn't apply.
The Park's response is "As the commenter points out, 16 USC 256b (the park’s enabling legislation) prohibits the hunting, killing, or capturing of wild animals in the park. However, as the federal courts have repeatedly stated in cases involving similar enabling act provisions at other parks, such text does not preclude the NPS itself from using its express authority to destroy 'detrimental' animals under the Organic Act." (FEIS Appendix page J-51, Concern 104). They do not cite any of those cases. Fewer than two dozen of the 405 units managed by NPS have such a statutory prohibition. The only case I can find is on the removal of bison from Yellowstone, which is explicitly allowed by another statute (16 USC 36). But Congress has passed no such statute allowing mountain goats to be removed from Olympic.
Congress has prohibited killing or capturing any wild animal in Olympic NP, and has provided no exception for mountain goats. This plan appears to be illegal.
(I agree reducing the mountain goat population is desirable and beneficial. And although a smaller population would not be "detrimental" according to independent scientific review panel*, I don't mind if the Park eradicates them entirely as planned. It just doesn't appear to be legal.)
* Noss, R. F., R. Graham, D. R. McCullough, F. L. Ramsey, J. Seavey, C. Whitlock, and M. P. Williams, Review of Scientific Material Relevant to the Occurrence, Ecosystem Role, and Tested Management Options for Mountain Goats in Olympic National Park. US Department of the Interior contract #14-10-0001-99-C-05. May 30, 2000, pages iv and 56.
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reststep
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 4757 | TRs | Pics
|
|
reststep
Member
|
Thu May 10, 2018 11:39 am |
|
|
I find it interesting that Olympic Park Associates appears to have no objection to the use of helicopters for rounding up mountain goats but was completely against using helicopters to lift new shelters to Home Sweet Home and Low Divide.
"The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
"The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Foist
Sultan of Sweat
Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 3974 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back! |
|
Foist
Sultan of Sweat
|
Thu May 10, 2018 12:01 pm |
|
|
Great point. And I can say that the goat-related helicopters are far more intrusive because it is repetitive and regular. They were very annoying on my trip to Royal Basin a couple years ago, buzzing around for much of the morning.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RodF
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA |
|
RodF
Member
|
Thu May 10, 2018 12:01 pm |
|
|
Reststep, I find it interesting that Olympic Park Associates appears to have no objection to 850 hours of helicopter use for rounding up mountain goats but was completely against using a helicopter for 1 hour to lift new shelters to Home Sweet Home and Low Divide.
Clearly, they have a big double standard for conservation versus recreational or historical purposes, all of which Congress gave as equal purposes for establishing Wilderness.
It'll be interesting to see whether Wilderness Watch defers. They have an even more aggressive history of challenging helicopter use, even for conservation of endangered species such as big horn sheep and grizzly bears.
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hbb
Member
Joined: 06 Aug 2009
Posts: 406 | TRs | Pics
|
|
hbb
Member
|
Thu May 10, 2018 12:46 pm |
|
|
| RodF wrote: | | hbb wrote: | | The enabling legislation for ONP has no such similar provision. NPS therefore has no authority to allow hunting in ONP. |
Correct. But read that statute again: 16 USC §256b. “All hunting or the killing, wounding, or capturing at any time of any wild bird or animal, except dangerous animals when it is necessary to prevent them from destroying human lives or inflicting personal injury, is prohibited within the limits of the park".
This prohibits the planned actions, to capture half the goats and kill the rest.
This plan relies on the authority granted in NPS Organic Act (54 USC 100752, was 16 USC 3 section 3) "The Secretary may provide for the destruction of such animals and of such plant life as may be detrimental to the use of any national park unit". This "shall, to the extent that those provisions are not in conflict with any such specific provision, be applicable to System units" (54 USC 100755). However, it is in conflict with this unit's establishment legislation, so doesn't apply.
The Park's response is "As the commenter points out, 16 USC 256b (the park’s enabling legislation) prohibits the hunting, killing, or capturing of wild animals in the park. However, as the federal courts have repeatedly stated in cases involving similar enabling act provisions at other parks, such text does not preclude the NPS itself from using its express authority to destroy 'detrimental' animals under the Organic Act." (FEIS Appendix page J-51, Concern 104). They do not cite any of those cases. Fewer than two dozen of the 405 units managed by NPS have such a statutory prohibition. The only case I can find is on the removal of bison from Yellowstone, which is explicitly allowed by another statute (16 USC 36). But Congress has passed no such statute allowing mountain goats to be removed from Olympic.
Congress has prohibited killing or capturing any wild animal in Olympic NP, and has provided no exception for mountain goats. This plan appears to be illegal.
(I agree reducing the mountain goat population is desirable and beneficial. And although a smaller population would not be "detrimental" according to independent scientific review panel*, I don't mind if the Park eradicates them entirely as planned. It just doesn't appear to be legal.)
* Noss, R. F., R. Graham, D. R. McCullough, F. L. Ramsey, J. Seavey, C. Whitlock, and M. P. Williams, Review of Scientific Material Relevant to the Occurrence, Ecosystem Role, and Tested Management Options for Mountain Goats in Olympic National Park. US Department of the Interior contract #14-10-0001-99-C-05. May 30, 2000, pages iv and 56. |
As I understood it, ONP is arguing that Congress, pursuant to 54 U.S.C. 100752, granted the Secretary of the Interior authority to create regulations allowing the killing or removal of wildlife that is considered detrimental to any park unit. In other words, they are saying this trumps the language in the enabling act.
I'm not sure what cases they are referring to either, but in addition to the Yellowstone case you mentioned, here are a few others that arguably support ONP's position:
WildEarth Guardians v. Nat'l Park Serv., 804 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (D. Colo. 2011).
N.M. State Game Com. v. Udall, 410 F.2d 1197, 1198 (10th Cir. 1969).
I don't know enough about the issues to take a position on whether ONP's proposed actions are permissible, but it does look like they have a decent argument.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RodF
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA |
|
RodF
Member
|
Thu May 10, 2018 2:48 pm |
|
|
| hbb wrote: | | I'm not sure what cases they are referring to either, but in addition to the Yellowstone case you mentioned, here are a few others that arguably support ONP's position:
WildEarth Guardians v. Nat'l Park Serv., 804 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (D. Colo. 2011). |
Yes, that's on point and I appreciate it. In that ruling, the court notes "the RMNP Act expressly prohibits '[a]ll hunting or the killing, wounding, or capturing at any time of any wild bird or animal' in RMNP. 16 U.S.C. § 198c. However, it specifically incorporates the Organic Act's provision for the discretionary destruction of animals that are detrimental to the park by the Park Service. 16 U.S.C. § 197."
Olympic NP has a similar statutory provision, 16 U.S.C. § 254, making administration of Olympic NP subject to the NPS Organic Act.
The ruling concludes "Other than pointing to the broad prohibition against 'hunting' or 'killing,' which it concedes has an exception, WildEarth offers little to show why the Park Service's interpretation is unreasonable. WildEarth has not directed the Court to anything in either the language of the Acts or their legislative history that suggests the Park Service's line-drawing between the prohibition and its exception is unreasonable or impermissible. Accordingly, the Court defers to the Park Service's construction and finds that the use of public volunteers to cull elk under the conditions of the plan does not violate the Organic Act or the RMNP Act."
However, the underlying law has since been clarified. In 2014, 54 USC § 100755 was enacted into positive law by the "title 54, United States Code, `National Park Service and Related Programs' Act" of 2014. 54 USC 100755 provides "the various authorities relating to the administration and protection of System units, including the provisions of law listed in subsection (b)" which explicitly lists section 100752 "shall, to the extent that those provisions are not in conflict with any such specific provision, be applicable to System units..." So to the extent the general provision 54 USC 100752 (destroy detrimental animals) conflicts with the provision specific only to Olympic NP, 16 USC 256b (prohibiting killing any wild animal), it is now clear it is not applicable.
If this case were brought today, and this argument brought, I believe the ruling would be reversed.
| hbb wrote: | | As I understood it, ONP is arguing that Congress, pursuant to 54 U.S.C. 100752, granted the Secretary of the Interior authority to create regulations allowing the killing or removal of wildlife that is considered detrimental to any park unit. In other words, they are saying this trumps the language in the enabling act. |
If they are, that would be in direct contradiction to 54 USC § 100755, which says the opposite.
| hbb wrote: | | N.M. State Game Com. v. Udall, 410 F.2d 1197, 1198 (10th Cir. 1969). |
I'm not seeing how that ruling supports NPS' position (if anything, the opposite). Carlsbad NP is an area of concurrent state and Federal jurisdiction (allowing state-regulated hunting), while Olympic NP is an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction (prohibiting hunting or killing), so the issue brought in this case ("who can issue hunting permits here?") isn't relevant. In Olympic NP, no one can, not even NPS.
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andypandy
Member
Joined: 31 Jan 2014
Posts: 31 | TRs | Pics
|
| Foist wrote: | | andypandy wrote: | | Non-native species with a high mortality rate anyway. |
Yeah very high. 100%, as I understand it. |
I take it you’re not a believer of the immortal mountain goat who, with a mighty toss of his shaggy mane, sired us all from droplets of water?
Or... I used some language and meaning that I use at work everyday and it made for some low hanging fruit.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
