Elk on private lands within Grand Teton National Park can be hunted, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed/NPS file
Posted on 01/04/2021 12:00:56 PM PST by SJackson
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.
Elk on private lands within Grand Teton National Park can be hunted, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed/NPS file
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.”
This is common sense. The article doesn't make clear that hunting on private land is regulated by the states, these inholdings are regulated by the state in which they lie.
Of which not one single member lives in Wyoming, Idaho or Montana.
Didn’t know that. That’s funny, but sad. There should be representation of all three states.
Not sad. Both organizations have nothing to do with the park serivce, but rather are communist organizations made up of Leftist Gaia worshippers from San Francisco and New York City.
I’m ecstatic to see them lose a federal case. It certainly doesn’t happen enough.
Makes sense. Private land doesn’t lose rights due to what’s outside it’s boundaries. Same situation in Colorado, and 1/3 of the state is public land, inholdings are everywhere.
I own 40 acres that is surrounded on three sides by BLM land so I have a vested interest in such things.
Since they lost I suppose it’s no matter, but an interesting point. An environmental group can’t send activists to prevent/disturb hunting on my property. I hope they wouldn’t have standing to try, just fighting that would be expensive. But it’s a world where a Presidential candidate doesn’t have standing to challenge a possibly fraudulent election. I suppose a lot of standing has to do with the finances of the parties and the opinions of the judges. Not on the law, on politics.
Lujan was one of the most important conservative victories in the Rehnquist court because it sharply reined in the very expansive view of standing taken by the late Warren court in environmental cases.
But it’s a world where a Presidential candidate doesn’t have standing to challenge a possibly fraudulent election. I suppose a lot of standing has to do with the finances of the parties and the opinions of the judges. Not on the law, on politics.
I don't think any court has ever held that Trump lacked standing to challenge the results of an election based on fraud. Courts have held that parties other than the candidate, such as the State of Texas or Lin Wood, lack standing, but not Trump or his campaign, with one technical exception.
The closest was the Trump v. Boockvar case in Pennsyvania federal court, which, of course received a lot of coverage. In that case, Trump abandoned all of his claims based on fraud, and instead pursued claims that Pennsylvania violated the Electors and Elections Clause by allowing some counties to cure defective mail-in ballots. But Trump conceded that he lacked standing to bring that claim under recent 3rd Circuit precedent in Bognet holding that only the state legislature has standing to bring such a claim, and Trump did not appeal that dismissal.
There has been a lot of misunderstanding of the rulings in the post-election cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.