In a victory for hunters, on March 29, 2016, a D.C. federal district court rejected all but one claim in two lawsuits that challenged the yearly elk hunt in Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. SCI, along with the State of Wyoming, participated in the case as intervenors to help the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service defend the legality of the hunt.
The court rejected most of the arguments advanced by the anti-hunting plaintiffs, but did rule in the plaintiffs’ favor on one minor procedural claim. Importantly, although the judge did send that one issue back to the agencies, the judge did not order the agencies to stop the hunt and did not set aside decisions that authorize the hunt annually. The judge repeatedly stated that the agencies should be able to easily fix the identified deficiency. In the meantime, the annual hunts, which occur in the fall/winter, can proceed.
An issue of particular importance to SCI was the court’s decision to reject the plaintiffs’ claim that the elk gut piles that hunters leave in the field “harass” (a form of prohibited “take” under the ESA) the threatened grizzly bears that also occupy the area. The ESA defines “harass” to include activities that alter a listed species’ feeding habits. The plaintiffs argued that the gut piles were an unnatural source of food for the bears and that bears were choosing the gut piles over other food sources. If the court had agreed with the plaintiffs, it could have led to a finding that the leaving of gut piles associated with elk hunting constitutes a violation of the ESA. Such a ruling would have had adverse repercussions for big game hunters across the country. In briefs to the court, SCI strongly disputed the plaintiffs’ arguments. Thankfully, the court agreed with SCI’s and the federal agencies’ arguments that gut piles do not alter their natural feeding habits or otherwise harass the bears.
Overall, the court’s ruling is a favorable outcome and a win for hunters. The hunts will continue. The agencies should be able to address the court’s one concern. We do not know at this time whether the plaintiffs will seek an appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals but we will continue to monitor the case and participate to defend the ruling if necessary.