This month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced plans to expand hunting activities at 10 national wildlife refuges in eight states, reports the Wildlife Management Institute. The proposal was published in the Federal Register on July 5, and a public comment period will be open until August 4. The FWS proposal comes just weeks after the judicial system closed the books on a lawsuit filed in 2003 that aimed to stop hunting on refuges.

"For decades, the National Wildlife Refuge System has offered some of the nation's best public hunting and fishing, helping to connect generations of Americans to their sporting heritage," said FWS Director Dan Ashe."The Fish and Wildlife Service is committed to expanding these opportunities wherever they are compatible with refuge purposes."

The refuges that will expand hunting opportunities are Crane Meadows and Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) in Minnesota, Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR in Minnesota and Iowa, Arapaho NWR in Colorado, Bayou Sauvage NWR in Louisiana, Coldwater River NWR in Mississippi, Currituck NWR in North Carolina, Ouray NWR in Utah and Trinity River NWR in Texas. The proposed hunting programs would expand big and small game as well as migratory waterfowl and upland game hunting, depending on the unit.

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the FWS can permit hunting and fishing programs on refuges as one of several priority public uses for the system. Currently, regulated hunting is authorized on more than 300 refuges and fishing is permitted on more than 270 refuges.

The hunting program on refuges came under fire in 2003 when the Fund for Animals (now merged with the Humane Society of the United States [HSUS]) challenged the legality of hunting on 37 refuges, claiming that insufficient environmental analysis had been done. In 2006, the case expanded to include any refuges that had been opened to hunting since the lawsuit began. The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and Safari Club International led the legal opposition to the case, with support from the National Rifle Association, Ducks Unlimited, Izaak Walton League, Delta Waterfowl Foundation and the California Waterfowl Association.

District Judge Ricardo Urbina ruled in 2006 that the FWS had violated the National Environmental Policy Act because it had not considered the cumulative impact of the opening and expansion of hunting on 60 refuges between 1997 and 2005. In response, the FWS instructed each affected refuge to conduct a cumulative impact analysis and reconsider its earlier decision to authorize hunting. Those assessments were completed in 2007 and confirmed that the refuges had adequately gauged the cumulative impacts of hunting and still found no significant impact from hunting.

HSUS refiled its complaint and, in April 2011, U.S. District Judge James S. Gwin, who presided over the court case, denied the lawsuit. In his ruling, Judge Gwin stated, "Plaintiffs, however, are not entitled to an inviolate sanctuary for their preferred uses?Congress has determined that, to the extent possible, hunters, fishers, observers, photographers, and educators must share the refuge."?

The window for appeal by the HSUS closed in late June. (jas)