G
George Wuerthner
Guest
- Thread Author
- #1
Wildlife and National Park enthusiasts should comment immediately (comment period closes in a few days) on the proposal by the Trump Administration to allow members of the Jemez Pueblo to kill bald and golden eagles in Valle Grande National Preserve in New Mexico.
Valle Caldera Preserve is a unit of the national park system in northern New Mexico. Photo by George Wuerthner
The issue is technical, but it is likely the National Park Service, under pressure from the Trump administration, and sadly from misinformed Indian advocates, will grant permission to kill eagles for “cultural” purposes, putting human exploitation ahead of wildlife protection and ecosystem integrity in our national parks.
The permitting process has been rushed. Even if granting such a permit were legal, and it is not, the NPS has prepared an EA that lacks even the most rudimentary basis for assessing the environmental consequences of consenting even partially to Pueblo’s demand.
To understand in more detail the clear violations of federal law that this proposal entails, see the comments of Frank Buono of the National Park Integrity Project.
Both Bald Eagles and Golden Eagles are protected under federal law. However, tribal members can legally obtain feathers and other eagle parts from the Fish and Wildlife Service for cultural purposes. Photo by George Wuerthner
If you want to comment on the EA for the eagle hunt, click here. The deadline is October 16.
THE ISSUE
The Biden Administration first authorized the killing of eagles in the Preserve. Chuck Sams, himself a Native American, approved the killing of eagles in the Preserve over the objections of National Park Service staff.
The issue is bigger than the killing of a few eagles. Eagles are not endangered; however, they are still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Act does permit tribal members to use eagle parts. When eagles are found dead, the Fish and Wildlife Service provides them to tribal members. For more on the issue, see my piece here.
It’s not out of the question that tribes may ask for a similar permit to kill bison and other wildlife in Yellowstone and other parks based on cultural preservation. Photo by George Wuerthner
The problem is the Valle Grande EA potentially opens the door to tribal killing of wildlife in national parks across the country based on cultural desires. As a rule, our national parks are wildlife refuges. Exceptions exist if Congress has authorized such activities. Many parks in Alaska allow subsistence hunting, trapping, and fishing. However, most national parks protect wildlife from exploitation.
The proposal could open all national parks to hunting, trapping, and other wildlife taken for cultural purposes.
The long-term threat to our national park system and public lands is that this proposal ranks protection of Tribal traditional and cultural practices higher than the Preserve and its wildlife.
Furthermore, the National Park Service is creating the illusion of regulatory compliance by inviting comments on an Environmental Assessment it has prepared. However, the entire proposal is illegal for three reasons.
• The proposed NPS action violates NPS regulations;
• The EA cites the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) provision in the Valles Caldera Enabling Act as the authority and interprets that Act contrary to the NPS officially stated position on AIRFA; and
• The EA proposes an action that impairs the resources that the Act of August 25, 1916, requires the NPS to conserve.
BREAKING NEW GROUND AND A THREAT TO PUBLIC LANDS
Typically, an EA reviews the impact of a proposed decision or action on the environment or wildlife. However, the Valle Caldera Preserve EA assesses the impact upon the traditional, cultural, and religious practices of an Indian Tribe — Jemez Pueblo if a permit to kill eagles in the Preserve is denied.
This interpretation corrupts the entire purpose and process of an EA.
Tribal practices are not part of the environment that NEPA was enacted to safeguard from rash decisions. If this were so, then every Federal agency action that would permit nonfederal parties to use, consume, or extract natural resources in the parks (or on any Federal lands) would have to assess the impact of agency denial on the applicant. Not the environment.
The tribe is interested in killing elk in Point Reyes National Seashore based on cultural preservation arguments. Photo by George Wuerthner
Even if one was sympathetic to the Jemez Pueblo’s desire to practice an ancient cultural practice, one can question whether it is necessary to do so in a national park unit.
Killing wildlife is permitted by all people, including Indians, on other federal lands such as Bureau of Land Management, National Wildlife Refuges, and National Forest Service lands. Is it necessary to kill wildlife on the only federal lands (National Park Units) where wildlife is usually protected from exploitation?
Valle Caldera Preserve is a unit of the national park system in northern New Mexico. Photo by George Wuerthner
The issue is technical, but it is likely the National Park Service, under pressure from the Trump administration, and sadly from misinformed Indian advocates, will grant permission to kill eagles for “cultural” purposes, putting human exploitation ahead of wildlife protection and ecosystem integrity in our national parks.
The permitting process has been rushed. Even if granting such a permit were legal, and it is not, the NPS has prepared an EA that lacks even the most rudimentary basis for assessing the environmental consequences of consenting even partially to Pueblo’s demand.
To understand in more detail the clear violations of federal law that this proposal entails, see the comments of Frank Buono of the National Park Integrity Project.
Both Bald Eagles and Golden Eagles are protected under federal law. However, tribal members can legally obtain feathers and other eagle parts from the Fish and Wildlife Service for cultural purposes. Photo by George Wuerthner
If you want to comment on the EA for the eagle hunt, click here. The deadline is October 16.
THE ISSUE
The Biden Administration first authorized the killing of eagles in the Preserve. Chuck Sams, himself a Native American, approved the killing of eagles in the Preserve over the objections of National Park Service staff.
The issue is bigger than the killing of a few eagles. Eagles are not endangered; however, they are still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Act does permit tribal members to use eagle parts. When eagles are found dead, the Fish and Wildlife Service provides them to tribal members. For more on the issue, see my piece here.
It’s not out of the question that tribes may ask for a similar permit to kill bison and other wildlife in Yellowstone and other parks based on cultural preservation. Photo by George Wuerthner
The problem is the Valle Grande EA potentially opens the door to tribal killing of wildlife in national parks across the country based on cultural desires. As a rule, our national parks are wildlife refuges. Exceptions exist if Congress has authorized such activities. Many parks in Alaska allow subsistence hunting, trapping, and fishing. However, most national parks protect wildlife from exploitation.
The proposal could open all national parks to hunting, trapping, and other wildlife taken for cultural purposes.
The long-term threat to our national park system and public lands is that this proposal ranks protection of Tribal traditional and cultural practices higher than the Preserve and its wildlife.
Furthermore, the National Park Service is creating the illusion of regulatory compliance by inviting comments on an Environmental Assessment it has prepared. However, the entire proposal is illegal for three reasons.
• The proposed NPS action violates NPS regulations;
• The EA cites the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) provision in the Valles Caldera Enabling Act as the authority and interprets that Act contrary to the NPS officially stated position on AIRFA; and
• The EA proposes an action that impairs the resources that the Act of August 25, 1916, requires the NPS to conserve.
BREAKING NEW GROUND AND A THREAT TO PUBLIC LANDS
Typically, an EA reviews the impact of a proposed decision or action on the environment or wildlife. However, the Valle Caldera Preserve EA assesses the impact upon the traditional, cultural, and religious practices of an Indian Tribe — Jemez Pueblo if a permit to kill eagles in the Preserve is denied.
This interpretation corrupts the entire purpose and process of an EA.
Tribal practices are not part of the environment that NEPA was enacted to safeguard from rash decisions. If this were so, then every Federal agency action that would permit nonfederal parties to use, consume, or extract natural resources in the parks (or on any Federal lands) would have to assess the impact of agency denial on the applicant. Not the environment.
The tribe is interested in killing elk in Point Reyes National Seashore based on cultural preservation arguments. Photo by George Wuerthner
Even if one was sympathetic to the Jemez Pueblo’s desire to practice an ancient cultural practice, one can question whether it is necessary to do so in a national park unit.
Killing wildlife is permitted by all people, including Indians, on other federal lands such as Bureau of Land Management, National Wildlife Refuges, and National Forest Service lands. Is it necessary to kill wildlife on the only federal lands (National Park Units) where wildlife is usually protected from exploitation?