Republicans to wreck protection for bears and wolves

finnegan

Debates

23 Mar '17 18:30

sh76
Civis Americanus Sum
New York
Joined
26 Dec '07
Moves
17585
23 Mar '17 20:38
Originally posted by vivify
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the states would still be able to legislate hunting and laws governing wildlife, right? If a state were to ban the hunting of a particular animal, does that mean the law has no jurisdiction in a national park?
That's a good point and certainly state laws do apply in national parks within their boundaries.

Still, under the supremacy clause, if Congress specifically allowed a certain conduct in a national park, it's questionable as to whether the state would be able to ban it.
sh76
Civis Americanus Sum
New York
Joined
26 Dec '07
Moves
17585
23 Mar '17 20:39
Originally posted by finnegan
I would need someone who knows to clarify but the way I interpret this, the people working for the National Parks are employed by the Federal Government, so their decisions are in theory decisions of the administration, but in practice usually delegated to professionals. So the people who manage the parks are being prevented from making professional decisions.
But all of their authority comes from Congress. So, of course, Congress could revoke or amend that authority.
sonhouse
Fast and Curious
slatington, pa, usa
Joined
28 Dec '04
Moves
53223
23 Mar '17 20:41
Originally posted by sh76
This page has a helpful answer to that question:

https://www.nps.gov/training/essentials/html/law_policy_topic.html
Sounds like the gist is it is fed land and states have no power in there.
finnegan
GENS UNA SUMUS
Joined
25 Jun '06
Moves
64930
23 Mar '17 20:46
Originally posted by sh76
But all of their authority comes from Congress. So, of course, Congress could revoke or amend that authority.
Ok thanks. So does this mean that the authority normally / formerly delegated to competent professionals is now to be withdrawn and only politicians in Congress will be able to act, assuming they can muster the energy and a majority to bother?
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
23 Mar '17 21:582 edits
Originally posted by sh76
That's a good point and certainly state laws do apply in national parks within their boundaries.

Still, under the supremacy clause, if Congress specifically allowed a certain conduct in a national park, it's questionable as to whether the state would be able to ban it.
That isn't what Congress did here; it used the Congressional Review Act to overturn an administrative rule passed last year. Info on the CRA (passed in 1996 but only used once before this January) is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act

Presumably, States could pass laws banning such practices. I think there's a good chance that Alaska and other States will.

EDIT: Seems like the reality is a bit more complicated:

Young's bill would repeal a regulation finalized in August by the Fish and Wildlife Service. It applies only to federal refuges in Alaska. A similar rule issued by the National Park Service, also for Alaska, was completed too long ago to be repealed. The dispute between Alaska's federal workers and the state Department of Fish and Game managers centers around control of predators like wolves and bears.

https://www.adn.com/politics/2017/02/16/u-s-house-passes-rep-don-youngs-bill-to-repeal-alaska-wildlife-management-regulation/

So the rule against these practices in National Parks will stand.

EDIT2: As the Alaska Dispatch News points out, this debate gets to the core of a long-running dispute:

"At the heart of the disagreement between state and federal wildlife managers is what each group thinks should guide its purpose. The federal government has argued that the goal on refuges and in parks should be biodiversity. The state Board of Game has an interest in ensuring maximum sustained populations for hunting."

Ensuring the "maximum sustained populations" of commonly hunted prey species like elk, moose and caribou often means reining in the populations of their predators — namely, bears and wolves. In the 2016 restrictions, federal regulators argued that the Alaskan Board of Game had gone too far in prioritizing the populations of prey species over predators.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/22/521089304/congress-rolls-back-obama-era-rule-on-hunting-bears-and-wolves-in-alaska
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
23 Mar '17 21:59
Originally posted by finnegan
Ok thanks. So does this mean that the authority normally / formerly delegated to competent professionals is now to be withdrawn and only politicians in Congress will be able to act, assuming they can muster the energy and a majority to bother?
It means one specific rule was overturned. The authority delegated to administrative agencies is subject to review based on the CRA as stated in my last post.
Eladar
Joined
12 Jul '08
Moves
13814
23 Mar '17 22:28
Originally posted by sh76
This page has a helpful answer to that question:

https://www.nps.gov/training/essentials/html/law_policy_topic.html
I said the Constitution.
kquinn909
Joined
15 Dec '03
Moves
313682
23 Mar '17 22:551 edit
Originally posted by Eladar
Of course if the US actually followed the Constitution there would be no Federal Park Lands since the Federal government is only allowed Washington DC, military bases, docks, munitions depots and post offices.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
23 Mar '17 22:55
Originally posted by Eladar
I said the Constitution.
Did you even open the link? It answers your question in the second paragraph:

The authority for creating national parks is found in the Constitution under the “Property Clause” (Article IV, Section 3). “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States….”

“Dispose of” is used in the sense of, “the act of transferring care, ownership or possession, or ownership to another”. Congress determined that it was “needful” to conserve certain lands unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. The authority for creating the National Park Service is found in The “Necessary and Proper Clause” (Article I, Section 8).
“Congress shall have the right to…make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
23 Mar '17 22:56
Originally posted by kquinn909
At least someone understands.
Apparently that "someone" never actually read the Constitution.
Eladar
Joined
12 Jul '08
Moves
13814
23 Mar '17 23:01
Originally posted by no1marauder
Did you even open the link? It answers your question in the second paragraph:

The authority for creating national parks is found in the Constitution under the “Property Clause” (Article IV, Section 3). [b]“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the ...[text shortened]... nstitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”[/b]
When a State becomes a State, it is no longer a territory. The territory rights go out the window with Statehood.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
23 Mar '17 23:17
Originally posted by Eladar
When a State becomes a State, it is no longer a territory. The territory rights go out the window with Statehood.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?

The Northwest Ordinance passed in 1787 banned slavery forever from the territories that became a number of the MidWest States. That provision did not become inapplicable when the States were admitted into the Union.
Eladar
Joined
12 Jul '08
Moves
13814
23 Mar '17 23:25
Originally posted by no1marauder
Where in the Constitution does it say that?

The Northwest Ordinance passed in 1787 banned slavery forever from the territories that became a number of the MidWest States. That provision did not become inapplicable when the States were admitted into the Union.
I fail to see how admitting those states as free states has anything to do with this.

The people who settled there were against slavery. It is like the Russians settling the Crimea with Russians and giving local power to the Russians.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
23 Mar '17 23:43
Originally posted by Eladar
I fail to see how admitting those states as free states has anything to do with this.

The people who settled there were against slavery. It is like the Russians settling the Crimea with Russians and giving local power to the Russians.
I know you "fail to see". That is because you don't understand the principles by which the Constitution was formed.

The Northwest Ordinance didn't admit any States; the territory covered in it did not become individual States until decades later. It did set rules for that territory that carried over for when it became States, however.

The same principle applies to Federal ownership of property that precedes the admission of the State. The Feds may cede whatever portion of that to the State being admitted as it desires.
Eladar
Joined
12 Jul '08
Moves
13814
23 Mar '17 23:50
Originally posted by no1marauder
I know you "fail to see". That is because you don't understand the principles by which the Constitution was formed.

The Northwest Ordinance didn't admit any States; the territory covered in it did not become individual States until decades later. It did set rules for that territory that carried over for when it became States, however.

The same prin ...[text shortened]... the State. The Feds may cede whatever portion of that to the State being admitted as it desires.
If a State wanted to declare itself a slave state, the Federal Government could not stop it.

The Constitution clearly states what the Federal Government can own.

As long as a simple majority of Supreme Court Judges say is what governs the land.

Debates Forum

Republicans to wreck protection for bears and wolves