# Judge Says Wildlife Refugee Hunts Illegal



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

JUDGE SAYS WILDLIFE REFUGEE HUNTS ILLEGAL

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

Published 12:07 pm PDT Friday, September 1, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) - Dozens of wildlife refuges could be closed to hunters after a federal judge ruled that the government never considered the consequences of steadily expanding hunting rights for six years.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina has ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated federal law when it allowed or expanded hunting at 37 refuges from 1997-2003.

While the agency studied the consequences of opening each refuge to hunters, Urbina said officials had a responsibility to look at the effects systemwide.

"No one was looking at the cumulative effect when you open 37 refuges," said Jonathan Lovvorn, vice president of the Humane Society of the United States and an attorney in the case. "You can't have each refuge sticking their head in the sand."

President Theodore Roosevelt began the wildlife refuge system in 1903, setting aside a tiny island off the east coast of Florida to protect pelicans and other birds from hunters. The system now includes more than 535 refuges where wildlife and its habitat are protected.

Environmental groups have criticized the government for allowing hunting, fishing and other recreational activities in many refuges.

While Urbina said in Thursday's ruling that wildlife officials violated the law, he stopped short of overturning the hunting rules and asked attorneys for both sides to propose solutions.

Lovvorn said that could mean banning or scaling back hunting. A Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman said the agency remains committed to allowing hunting when it is compatible with the refuge mission.

"At this point there hasn't been any indication anything is going to change immediately," spokesman David Eisenhauer said. "It's a little early to say what's going to happen."

The refuges at issue in the lawsuit are located primarily in the South, Virgina and Appalachia and the Pacific Northwest.



http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/3363285p-12378660c.html


*****************

Tim4Trout comment --- The success of wildlife refuges requires proper management. The allowance of regulated hunting helps to ensure well balanced wildlife populations and a healthy ecosystem.

It is unfortunate for these refuges and their wildlife that Judge Ricardo M. Urbina has allowed radical factions like the humane society of the United States, ( whose ultimate agenda is not associated with the benefit of wildlife, but rather self centered towards attempting to see that hunting is not a part of its management ), to cloud his judgement.

Hunters are the cornerstone of conservation in the U.S. accounting for $BILLIONS$ annually in funding for many beneficial wildlife program


----------



## 460461whatever (Jan 22, 2005)

*Maybe "refuge" is the wrong word for these lands*

What I mean is that, while there are many species on these refuges, the ones that need special protection are already protected by special laws. Many, or most, of the animals on most refuges need management because their species are not endangered. Many of, or parts of, the refuges ban trespass because of the sensitivity of some species. Some refuges are set aside for waterfowl resting areas while opening later for other hunting after most of the waterfowl have left the areas for the winters.

It's easy to see that HSUS is trying to use the word "refuge" ban all hunting on all refuges by applying the basic definition of the word. It's also very sad that HSUS found themselves another bleeding heart federal judge.


----------



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

USSA Urges Appeal in Case to Ban Hunting on Refuges- (09/01)

National

(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.

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund is the nation’s only litigation force that exclusively represents sportsmen’s interests in the courts. It defends wildlife management and sportsmen’s rights in local, state and federal courts. The SLDF represents the interests of sportsmen and assists government lawyers who have little or no background in wildlife law.


---------------------------------

Information on this website can be reprinted with a citation to the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and www.ussportsmen.org 
------------------------------
For more information about how you can protect your rights as a sportsman, contact The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, 801 Kingsmill Parkway, Columbus, OH 43229. Phone (614) 888-4868. E-Mail us at [email protected]


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

Well, I might as well sell my bow. I've hunted nothing but two refuges the last 5 or 6 years.


----------



## huntfish25 (May 29, 2004)

we need to get on the phone and call our sentors tuesday. let them know we are the ones who is paying for the refuges not HSUS. ir our hunting lic and taxes is paying for these parks not one red sent comes from anywhere else. if this stands we will let them know it in nov. matter fact i e-mailing people right now.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

FUBAR. This is going to be a busy fall for us, and I don't mean hunting!  

Every wildlife refuge needs proper management to maintain the very best conditions for wildlife to thrive. Get on your representatives and educate them to this very real need.


----------



## vermonster13 (Sep 18, 2004)

For once it's not the representatives who burned us, but a Clinton era judge. Imagine that.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

Has anyone found a list of the refuges that are affected?


----------



## Engelsmung (Jan 12, 2005)

*not the ones we hunt, boyee*

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

though there are several from La on the list.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Engelsmung said:


> http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/refugeschart.pdf
> 
> though there are several from La on the list.


Thanks for the list. Isn't it amazing that hunting has been happening on many of these refuges for over 10 years? No issues or problems with any existing "T or E" species. 

I sincerenly hope this one gets overturned. The precedent this bankrupt decision would set could lead to closing more areas like the Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge in CNY, one of the great duck hunting areas in NYS.

FUBAR


----------



## Engelsmung (Jan 12, 2005)

*decision*

I have not yet been able to read the decision, but frequently alarmists overblow stuff like this. It seems odd that some NE liberal judge could abolish hunting on land in Louisiana. All of the refuges listed in La are either new, or have newly added property, with the exception of Cameron Prairie. CP allowed lottery duck hunts for the first time afew years back, and they have nice pit blinds, but the hunting sucks, mainly b/c the refuge has so many areas of no pressure, and sits in the middle of thousands of acres of marsh. I had two hunts with my daughters, shooting about 6 birds total, but one speck, which was nice.


----------



## ftshooter (Jul 26, 2003)

Engelsmung said:


> I have not yet been able to read the decision, but frequently alarmists overblow stuff like this. It seems odd that some NE liberal judge could abolish hunting on land in Louisiana. All of the refuges listed in La are either new, or have newly added property, with the exception of Cameron Prairie. CP allowed lottery duck hunts for the first time afew years back, and they have nice pit blinds, but the hunting sucks, mainly b/c the refuge has so many areas of no pressure, and sits in the middle of thousands of acres of marsh. I had two hunts with my daughters, shooting about 6 birds total, but one speck, which was nice.



Fed land is fed land no matter what state it is in ..This stuff is why the left wing stacks the courts ..


----------



## progers (Jan 22, 2006)

Engelsmung said:


> http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/refugeschart.pdf
> 
> though there are several from La on the list.



Thanks for the heads up and the link. Looks like we all have something in common to work for. I hope none of yall loose any hunting land. 

Keep us posted and good luck with bow season. We are almost there!


----------



## progers (Jan 22, 2006)

OK, I got a response on this but, haven't had much time to go over it. I figured that I would post the info and hopefully some of yall can check it out:


PL 105-57 Questions and Answers: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/policymakers/mandates/hr1420/qsas.html


*Question*: What direction do the amendments to the Administration Act give regarding uses of the Refuge System?

*Answer*: The legislation tells us that the primary use of refuges is to fulfill the mission of the System as well as the purposes for the individual refuges. The legislation identifies wildlife dependent recreational uses including *hunting*, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation as the *priority* general public uses of the System. The legislation establishes these wildlife-dependent recreational uses as *"legitimate and appropriate"* public uses of the Refuge System where they are compatible with the Refuge System mission and the purposes of individual refuges. Quoting the Committee Report: "Because priority uses like hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and environmental education are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations, they are *directly related to the mission of the System and the purposes of many refuges*. If our refuges and the Refuge System are managed well, then these priority uses will, in turn, prosper into the future." It states that these uses should receive priority consideration over other public uses in planning and management within the System. It also states that these priority public uses should be facilitated where compatible but does not mandate them.


----------

