Judge Rules Against FWS on Refuge Hunts
by Dave Workman
Senior Editor
A federal judge in Washington, DC, has ruled that the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) violated federal law by allowing expanded hunting on 37 wildlife refuges from 1997 to 2003 because the agency apparently didn’t comply with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
US District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, a Clinton appointee to the court, ruled that FWS established the expanded hunting seasons without considering the environmental impact. The affected refuges are primarily located in the Pacific Northwest, the South, Virginia and Appalachia.
The ruling was considered a win for the anti-hunting Fund for Animals, which filed a lawsuit in 2003. Since then, the Fund for Animals has merged with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), another anti-hunting organization.
Almost immediately, the Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund called on FWS to appeal the ruling, as it could jeopardize far more than expanded opportunities on just the 37 affected refuges. The Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund is managed by the US Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA). USSA has announced it will “seek redress” from Congress, insisting that the ruling “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,” USSA said in a statement to the press.
The case originally sought to ban hunting on 39 refuges. Environmental organizations have opposed hunting or fishing on many refuge properties. There are currently more than 535 refuges in the system covering more than 100 million acres. The first national wildlife refuge was established in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt, an ardent hunter and angler.
“The court’s decision is bad for the refuge system,” said Rick Story, senior vice president for the USSA. “We are urging the US 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%.”
USSA is concerned because the ruling could require FWS “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,” said the organization, “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.”
According to Associated Press (AP), Urbina stopped short of setting aside the hunting rules now in place on the refuges, instead asking attorneys for both sides to recommend solutions to the problem.
But it appears the only solution that may satisfy the plaintiffs is a halt to hunting on the refuges. Attorney Jonathan Lovvorn, who represents the plaintiffs and is vice president of the HSUS, was quoted by AP suggesting that a solution could mean bans or restrictions on refuge hunting.
An FWS spokesman told AP that the agency is committed to allowing refuge hunting when it is “compatible with the refuge mission.”
USSA’s Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund had collaborated as a defendant intervener, along with Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, the California Waterfowl Association, Safari Club International, and the Izaak Walton League.
Return to Archive Index