BigHornRam
Well-known member
USSA Urges Appeal in Case to Ban Hunting on Refuges
(Columbus) - The Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund is urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to appeal a judge’s decision handed down yesterday that likely will outlaw hunting on 37 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Preliminary indications are that U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina’s decision will require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to perform costly and lengthy studies on the environmental impact of hunting on the entire refuge system before it can expand hunting opportunities on any refuge.
The USFWS already studies the impact of hunting on refuges through the required refuge plans it completes as well as national migratory bird studies. Adding more studies only succeeds in miring down the process so that no one will be able to hunt on refuges.
The decision also runs contrary to current law. In 1966, and again in 1997, Congress expressly recognized the legitimacy of hunting on units of the refuge system and directed the USFWS to facilitate and increase these opportunities whenever they are determined to be compatible.
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA), which manages the Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund, will seek from Congress redress on this baffling decision.
“The court’s decision is bad for the refuge system,” said Rick Story, senior vice president for the USSA. “We are urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to appeal the judge’s ruling. I can assure you that the Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund will back them 100 percent.”
The Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund collaborated as defendant interveners in the case with Safari Club International, Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, Izaak Walton League and the California Waterfowl Association.
The case was filed in 2003 in the Washington, D.C. Federal District Court by the Fund for Animals, which has since merged with the Humane Society of the United States. It originally sought to ban hunting on 39 units of the 100 million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System. The case claimed that the USFWS, which manages the refuges, failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires extensive Environmental Impact Statements, prior to establishing hunting programs.
In September of 2005, Judge Urbina granted a motion for partial dismissal of the anti-hunters’ case, ruling that since the goals outlined in the USFWS strategy are not final agency action there is no need for comprehensive environmental studies.
(Columbus) - The Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund is urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to appeal a judge’s decision handed down yesterday that likely will outlaw hunting on 37 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Preliminary indications are that U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina’s decision will require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to perform costly and lengthy studies on the environmental impact of hunting on the entire refuge system before it can expand hunting opportunities on any refuge.
The USFWS already studies the impact of hunting on refuges through the required refuge plans it completes as well as national migratory bird studies. Adding more studies only succeeds in miring down the process so that no one will be able to hunt on refuges.
The decision also runs contrary to current law. In 1966, and again in 1997, Congress expressly recognized the legitimacy of hunting on units of the refuge system and directed the USFWS to facilitate and increase these opportunities whenever they are determined to be compatible.
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA), which manages the Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund, will seek from Congress redress on this baffling decision.
“The court’s decision is bad for the refuge system,” said Rick Story, senior vice president for the USSA. “We are urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to appeal the judge’s ruling. I can assure you that the Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund will back them 100 percent.”
The Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund collaborated as defendant interveners in the case with Safari Club International, Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, Izaak Walton League and the California Waterfowl Association.
The case was filed in 2003 in the Washington, D.C. Federal District Court by the Fund for Animals, which has since merged with the Humane Society of the United States. It originally sought to ban hunting on 39 units of the 100 million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System. The case claimed that the USFWS, which manages the refuges, failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires extensive Environmental Impact Statements, prior to establishing hunting programs.
In September of 2005, Judge Urbina granted a motion for partial dismissal of the anti-hunters’ case, ruling that since the goals outlined in the USFWS strategy are not final agency action there is no need for comprehensive environmental studies.
