Judge makes ruling that hunting on wildlife refuges is illegal!

[vermonster13]

Please read the articles at the following links! If you hunt in the south or Pacific Northwest this could effect you!


 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090101004.html


 http://www.ussportsmen.org/interactive/features/Read.cfm?ID=1847


 http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=5356143&nav=23ii

[vermonster13]

For those wondering if they'll be affected, here is a list of the refuges.

 http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/refugeschart.pdf

[vermonster13]

These refuges are all over the country. One may be close to you.

[JC]

Man, they sure ain't got a clue in their tiny lil liberal head. And did you see the preponderance of land in LA...messin with all them cajun's land?    I'm figgerin for a riot on the bayou!

[tamure]

Well, he never really ruled that it is illegal per se. That Washington Post article is terribly misleading. The judge only ruled that the FWS failed to follow the law when it enacted six new rules allowing or expanding hunting on certain refuges because it failed to have an Environmental Impact Study done before it finalized the rules.

The judge declined to declare the rules void, pending supplemental briefing by the parties on possible solutions.

So, the rules may stay in place or be replaced. All the agency has to do is complete EIS, and the EIS's have to show that hunting will not harm the environment. Of course, in reality that makes passing such rules more difficult, expensive, and time consuming. But it certainly doesn't mean that hunting on refuges is illegal.

Of course, this is a not-even-veiled attempt to eventually end hunting on such refuges by making it economically burdensome for the agency to allow or expand it. The solution would be a clarification of the law that the FWS isn't required to complete EIS's. That could happen by legislation or on appeal, and I'm sure this is being appealed.

[vermonster13]

I have been in contact with the groups involved in the appeal process. Actually individual studies were done on each reserve before being opened to hunting. The precedent that HSUS is trying to get and it's definition of the laws involved is at issue. FWS needs to make the appeal so some others can come onboard with the clout of FWS behind them and the bankrolling of the appeal done by hunters. This may become an e-mail campaign very soon so stay tuned.

To many issues and parameters being worked out right now for a definitive action yet.

I posted the headline as it was written, misleading, somewhat, but it is laying the groundwork for exactly that and there are many other places such a precedent could be used if this ruling is allowed to stand.

[tamure]

Yeah, the court's opinion mentions that FWS did in fact to an impact study for each refuge. That's what I find ridiculous about this... that's not good enough. They have to do a study how it will effect ALL the refuges...

I'm just as disappointed with the WP (although not as surprised) as with the decision. The article makes it sound like refuges were setup precisely to protect critters from hunters, with the inference that any hunting at all goes against the whole idea. That's not true at all. They were setup to protect very specific species, but many more species also live there in such numbers that they can/should be hunted.