Congress Overturning of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services Alaska Wildlife Refuges Hunting Rule

Congress Overturning of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services Alaska Wildlife Refuges Hunting Rule
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Congress Overturning of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services Alaska Wildlife Refuges Hunting Rule
Alaska wildlife has a number of positive values to the state. However, with an increase in population not only in the state but across the country and living standards, the human needs such as land have expanded as well. This may increase the potential conflicts between humans and wildlife. This paper analyzes the potential impacts of the rule in Alaska and possible alternatives for wildlife management between the state and federal governments. The proponents of overturning the rule cite various allegations surrounding the economy of the state as well as the relationship between wildlife management between the state and federal managers. On the other side, the opponents argue that the state wants to illegally manage wildlife in the state. The major aim of the rule was to reduce predation and hunting of wildlife species that requires protection.
Introduction
One of my tasks as a student according to the syllabus is to write and submit a research paper on a topic that is provided by the instructor. The provided topic is “Congress Overturning of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services Alaska Wildlife Refuges Hunting Rule”. Therefore, I have spent some of my time to research on historical issues surrounding the rule in Alaska. Therefore, to complete my research, I had analyzed some of the historical laws and regulations governing Fish and Wildlife management on national refuges in Alaska. Through my analysis, I can argue that it is correct to conclude that the controversial issue in Alaska in regard to the National Wildlife Refuge hunting and fishing rule is more of a social one than environmental due to the “dual management” system in the State.
Having considered all the available evidence, especially from the proponents of overturning the rule, it is evident that this rule has undermined the American Constitution, the economy and the rights of the Alaskan residents. According Kevin McCarthy, this rule had massively restricted the rights of Alaskan hunters threatening the economy and residents of Alaska. Based on the Statistics provided by the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, more than 125,000 Alaskan residents engage in hunting practices, which are responsible for the generation of more than $439 million economic activities and 5,950 jobs. However, despite the fact that this rule impacts Alaska only, if possible measures of overturning the rule could not have been taken, soon or later the federal bureaucratic power bud could have eventually been extended to other states hurting the economy of the whole country. The most affected actors of these rules were the subsistence hunters of Alaska who relied on hunting not only for food, but also for economic purposes to boost their survival. Therefore, overturning the rule largely benefits these hunters as well as the Alaskan State as it assumes its sovereign
Across the globe, hunters are restricted from hunting by various animal-rights associations and rules that have condemned the killing of animals and describing the act as inhumane. However, besides them being caught off-balance, hunters have always found their way into hunting again through counter-offensive measures or overturning of the rules. The recent scenario is the overturning of the National Wildlife Refuge Hunting and Fishing Rule in Alaska.
The proponents of this action argue that hunting is not only a cherished and a spiritual American culture, but also an economic development and effective wildlife management tool. As the hunting debate in Alaska continues to rage, both sides strive to sway the thinking of Alaskans in relation to wildlife hunting in the state. However, even if the opponents win the battle, the increasing population, living standards, the demand for land as well as shrinking wildlife habitat may change their opinions or perspectives in ways not to their liking.
The beginning of a hunting period marks the start of the anti-hunting season as well. As the hunters gather their hunting instruments and head into the woods, the opponents also assemble their weapons to stand against hunting. Throughout the history, some of these confrontations have turned ugly. The first incident was witnessed in 1990 at Mason Neck National Wldlife Refuge in Fairfax County when protestors attempted to bar hunters from accessing the 1,000 acre refuge for deer hunt. The protestors had cemented their feet at the entrance.There have been a number of showdowns in the country especially in California and Northeast.
Purpose
Although the major aim of overturning the rule as argued by most of the proponents is to restore the rights of subsistence hunters in Alaska, it is not the primary one. The main goal of this disapproval dissolution was to reduce the conflicts between the State and federal management of the national wildlife refuges on Alaska lands which results from the “dual management” system that was created by the federal government assuming fish and wildlife management on all federal public lands across the State.
Need for Action
The need for overturning the rule was based on various actions, considerations and requests that called for the respect of the constitution and others statue agreements such as the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Acts (ANILCA). Consequently, these requests aimed at giving equal access to public resources to both rural and urban residents who relied on fishing and hunting for survival. This was not only to reclaim the American hunting heritage, but also contribute to the development of the State’s economy due to these hunting and fishing practices.
State and Federal Fishing and Hunting Statutes
The first statutes governing fishing and hunting activities in Alaska were passed in 1978 as a subsistence law, after it was found out that it was in the public interest to “establish subsistence use as a priority use of Alaska’s fish and game resources and to recognize the needs, customs and traditions of Alaskan residents.” According to the 1978 state law, subsistence use is defined as
The customary and traditional uses in Alaska of wild, renewable resources for direct personal and family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation, for the making and selling of handicraft articles out on nonedible by-products of fish and wildlife taken for personal or family consumption, and for the customary trade, barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption (Alaska Statute 16.05.940:26)
This state law allowed the Alaska Boards of Fisheries and Game to implement rules and regulations that allow hunting to be carried when there is a surplus of wildlife resources only when they have been identified. However, in case of wildlife shortages, hunting activities were only permitted to commercial and sport uses of the wildlife resource. This statute law created a division that was allowed to compile existing data and collect data from hunters in all aspects include the impact of hunting and fishing to the Alaskan residents (Alaska Statute 16.05.094).
Another law that regulated fishing and hunting activities in Alaska was passed by the Congress in 1980 (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Its Title VIII was a federal counterpart to the State’s subsistence statute and was applicable to federal lands in conservation units that became into existence after this Act was enacted. The ANILCA provided various provisions that permitted the state to continue managing hunting and fishing on federal lands provided that it complied with the hunting and fishing scope as described by the federal law. To ensure that the state law complied with ANILCA, it was revised in 1986 to limit fishing and hunting to rural areas. However, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in McDowell v. State in 1989 that prioritizing hunting and fishing to rural residents violated the “equal access” to various resources as provided in the Alaskan constitution. Besides this requirement by the federal law, the statute law was never repealed to contain the rural priority which was to allow the state to retain its management on fishing and hunting in federal lands.
In 1990, the federal government assumed the management responsibility fishing and hunting on federal lands in Alaska. Consequently, it established the Office of Subsistence Management in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that was to be responsible for administering the program. In 1995 the federal authority was extended to include certain navigable waters following a federal court ruling that stated that “public lands” in Alaska included navigable waters.
Following these series of laws, what resulted was a “dual management” system that gave birth to the ongoing controversy in Alaska as well as the duplication of certain functions between the federal and state governments. For example, the federal government is responsible for the regulation of fishing and hunting on federal lands while the state regulates other hunting and fishing activities in federal public lands. The federal fishing and hunting regulation is not applicable to endangered species, marine mammals and migratory animals. The history of fish and wildlife management in Alaska has been discussed and debated by various scholars, hence it cannot be extensively addressed in this paper.
Not surprisingly, fish and wildlife management has been and continues to be a controversial issue in all aspects of the public sphere that has a significant impact to the lives of Alaskan residents. The rural Alaskan residents, natives and no-natives alike are the once who are greatly impacted by these rules and regulations because of the importance of fish and wildlife resources to the local economies. However, the political influence of rural Alaskan residents is decreasing due the increasing urban population. Vocal urban residents have ganged up to create associations that object to the laws and regulations that restrict them to accessing fishing and hunting lands and been opposing the attempts of amending the law that seeks to prioritize rural residents on accessing state-managed fishing and hunting lands.
Alaska National Wildlife Refuge Rule
The major aim that propelled the Obama administration to sign the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge Rule was to help in protecting bears, wolves and other carnivores on federal public lands as an attempt of conserving the natural ecosystems for not only the Alaskans but also to all Americans. The bottom line, the U.S Fish and wildlife Service (FWS) issued the rule to protect the country’s wildlife heritage by barring the Alaska state from applying its aggressive “predator control” policies on federal refuges. It has been argued that the state’s predator control program was aimed at artificially increasing the population of wildlife such as deer and caribou by culling endangered species through adverse means such as the killing of wolves and pups in their dens, mother bears, trapping, baiting as well as the use of airplanes to shoot bears.
The Obama Alaska National Wildlife Refuges Rule maintains the FWS’s legal provisions of maintaining all aspects of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This rule strives to ensure that the refuge ecosystems are managed according to the federal laws and provisions of conserving wildlife species in natural habitats while allowing hunting activities. America’s National Wildlife Refuge System is the only body of federal lands and waters that strives to conserve wildlife resources. It is administered by the FWS and this has made it possible for the country’s 566 national wildlife refuges to protect a wide range of wildlife resources while granting access to millions of Americans to wildlife hunting and recreational activities.
Although sporting and subsistence hunting form an integral part of the American heritage, it is important that these activities on public lands complies with federal laws and policies for the conservation of wildlife resources as well as benefit of all Americans. Therefore, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuges Rule provides a roadmap to how the Alaskan refuges have been managed throughout history while supporting traditional and subsistence hunting and sporting activities.
Impact of Overturning the Rule
Repealing this rule prevents FWS from effectively managing sustainable populations of various wildlife species such as wolves a...