Big Trouble 4 Hunters
12-11-2010, 04:58 PM
#1
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 349
Big Trouble 4 Hunters
I would hate to see if they is the future for hunting on public land! This is why we hunters need be very active in fighting for our sport.
U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
Forest Service to Consider Banning Gun Hunting
in Parts of Huron-Manistee National Forest
(Columbus, OH) - As a result of a recent anti-hunting court ruling, the U.S. Forest Service is starting a formal review of its Management Plan for the Huron-Manistee National Forest to consider banning hunting with firearms in some areas.
In September, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Forest Service’s regulations required that it consider banning hunting with guns on lands designated as “semi-primitive.” The Court found that the noise associated with gun hunting could harm the quality of the recreational experience of hikers, backpackers, and cross county skiers.
Just as troublesome, the Court ruled that the Forest Service was required to consider closing these areas to gun hunting in places where there is other public, non-Forest land nearby that is open to gun hunting. This could require the Forest Service to close lands currently open for gun hunting when other state or federal hunting lands are opened.
The court ruling has prompted the Forest Service to start a formal review of the Huron-Manistee Management Plan. Primarily, the review will focus on whether or not hunting with guns should be banned on the “semi-primitive” areas.
Sportsmen will be given opportunities to submit comments to the Forest Service throughout the review process.
“This court ruling is a major threat to hunting on these lands and across the country,” said Rob Sexton, USSA vice president for government affairs. “Anti-hunters will likely use this ruling to try and force the Forest Service to ban gun hunting on other Forest lands.”
On October 26th, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and a coalition of nineteen other leading conservation groups sent a letter to the Forest Service requesting that it rewrite the regulations the Court used to render the anti-hunting decision.
The USSA will keep sportsmen apprised of when and where they can submit comments on this issue.
U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
Forest Service to Consider Banning Gun Hunting
in Parts of Huron-Manistee National Forest
(Columbus, OH) - As a result of a recent anti-hunting court ruling, the U.S. Forest Service is starting a formal review of its Management Plan for the Huron-Manistee National Forest to consider banning hunting with firearms in some areas.
In September, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Forest Service’s regulations required that it consider banning hunting with guns on lands designated as “semi-primitive.” The Court found that the noise associated with gun hunting could harm the quality of the recreational experience of hikers, backpackers, and cross county skiers.
Just as troublesome, the Court ruled that the Forest Service was required to consider closing these areas to gun hunting in places where there is other public, non-Forest land nearby that is open to gun hunting. This could require the Forest Service to close lands currently open for gun hunting when other state or federal hunting lands are opened.
The court ruling has prompted the Forest Service to start a formal review of the Huron-Manistee Management Plan. Primarily, the review will focus on whether or not hunting with guns should be banned on the “semi-primitive” areas.
Sportsmen will be given opportunities to submit comments to the Forest Service throughout the review process.
“This court ruling is a major threat to hunting on these lands and across the country,” said Rob Sexton, USSA vice president for government affairs. “Anti-hunters will likely use this ruling to try and force the Forest Service to ban gun hunting on other Forest lands.”
On October 26th, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and a coalition of nineteen other leading conservation groups sent a letter to the Forest Service requesting that it rewrite the regulations the Court used to render the anti-hunting decision.
The USSA will keep sportsmen apprised of when and where they can submit comments on this issue.
12-12-2010, 01:38 PM
#3
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: East Central ILLinois USA
Posts: 1,595
The Court found that the noise associated with gun hunting could harm the quality of the recreational experience of hikers, backpackers, and cross county skiers.
12-12-2010, 08:45 PM
#4
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 349
Huron-Manistee National Forests to review Forest Plan
Date: Nov 29, 2010 Cadillac, MI
Contact(s): Ken Arbogast
The Forest Service is beginning a formal review of the Land and Resource Management Plan of the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
As a result of a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Forest Service will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement to assess the environmental impacts of a proposed ban on firearm hunting, subject to existing rights, and snowmobile use on National Forest System lands within Semiprimitive Non-motorized Management Areas and a ban on firearm hunting, subject to existing rights, in the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area. This analysis will allow the agency to make a decision in accordance with federal regulations.
On September 29, 2010, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a favorable District Court ruling in a lawsuit involving the Huron-Manistee. Kurt Meister, a Michigan attorney, claimed that the Forest Service failed to address his concerns about noise created by gun hunters and snowmobiles in Semiprimitive Non-motorized Management Areas and the Wilderness.
Public involvement will occur during each phase of the review process. At a minimum, the process to consider a plan amendment includes:
-- USFS --
Date: Nov 29, 2010 Cadillac, MI
Contact(s): Ken Arbogast
The Forest Service is beginning a formal review of the Land and Resource Management Plan of the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
As a result of a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Forest Service will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement to assess the environmental impacts of a proposed ban on firearm hunting, subject to existing rights, and snowmobile use on National Forest System lands within Semiprimitive Non-motorized Management Areas and a ban on firearm hunting, subject to existing rights, in the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area. This analysis will allow the agency to make a decision in accordance with federal regulations.
On September 29, 2010, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a favorable District Court ruling in a lawsuit involving the Huron-Manistee. Kurt Meister, a Michigan attorney, claimed that the Forest Service failed to address his concerns about noise created by gun hunters and snowmobiles in Semiprimitive Non-motorized Management Areas and the Wilderness.
Public involvement will occur during each phase of the review process. At a minimum, the process to consider a plan amendment includes:
- Consultation with Native American tribes.
- Publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register and Michigan newspapers announcing a 45-day comment period.
- Analysis of the comments received and possibly develop additional Alternatives to respond to these comments.
- Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and analyze effects of the Alternatives.
- Public review and comment period on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
- Preparation of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
- Publication of a Decision Notice in the Federal Register.
- A 90-day appeal period.
-- USFS --
12-12-2010, 08:56 PM
#5
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 349
Here is where you can find your states elected officials to send comments to. We don’t need something like this to happen across the U.S.
http://capwiz.com/ussportsmen/home/?external_id=10405.0
http://capwiz.com/ussportsmen/home/?external_id=10405.0
12-12-2010, 09:17 PM
#6
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 349
The Begining of the End for Hunting in Michigan?
Can get an appeals court to change the Huron-Manistee forest plan? Wow.
http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/i...y_set_new.html
Kurt Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Sep 29: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 09-1712. The Appeals Court says that an agency is not entitled to deference simply because it is an agency. It is true that agencies are more specialized than courts are. But for courts to defer to them, agencies must do more than announce the fact of their comparative advantage; they must actually use it. And that means, among many other things, that the agency must apply -- rather than disregard -- the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria.
Kurt Meister, a Michigan attorney appearing pro se [representing himself], argues that the United States Forest Service disregarded the relevant criteria here. Specifically, he claims that the Service failed to comply with several of its own regulations and one federal statute in developing its 2006 management plan for the Huron-Manistee National Forests in Northern Michigan. For the most part, we agree with him; and to that extent we reverse the district court's entry of judgment in the Service's favor and remand the case so that the Service may comply with those requirements forthwith.
The case concerns the Service's management of recreational activities in the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The Forests occupy about 970,000 acres on each side of the northern one-third of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. In the east, the Huron National Forest ranges between 12 and 30 miles long from north to south, and stretches 60 miles wide from west to east, reaching the shores of Lake Huron. In the west, the Manistee National Forest is about 75 miles long and 40 miles wide, reaching Lake Michigan near Manistee.
The Service issued a management plan for the Forests in 1986. In 2003, the Service published a notice of intent to revise the plan. The Service thereafter held public meetings and solicited public comments as to how to revise the plan. Meister commented on the Plan throughout its development. Those comments reveal fluency with the language of the relevant statutes and regulations; and they explained in considerable detail why Meister thought the Service was not meeting its obligations under the law. His principal comment was that, in developing the Plan, the Service had disregarded certain processes prescribed in its own regulations, so as to favor gun hunters and snowmobile users over other persons—for example, hikers and birdwatchers -- who use the Forests for quiet, solitary activities. He also commented that the Service should close more areas of the Forests to motorized activity than the Service seemed likely to close in the Plan. The Appeals Court said, "It appears that the Service disagreed with all of Meister's comments." Following an administrative appeals, Meister filed suit in district court and the district court granted the Service's motion, holding in general terms that the Service had complied with the applicable regulations. The district court denied Meister's motion.
The Appeals Court summarize its holdings saying, "First, the Service's estimates of snowmobile and cross-country visitors to the Forests are arbitrary. . . Second, the Service has not complied with the requirement that it coordinate its recreational planning with that of the State of Michigan with the aim (to the extent feasible) of "reducing duplication in meeting recreation demands" with respect to gun hunting and snowmobiling. . . Third, the Service's reasons for keeping pre-designation and club trails open to snowmobile use are arbitrary. . . Fourth, the Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it failed to consider whether to close Primitive and Semiprimitive Nonmotorized areas to gun hunting and snowmobile use, as Meister has proposed."
The Appeals Court ruled, "Each of these failures was material to the Plan's development. To that extent, the Plan's approval was arbitrary or without observance of procedures required by law. Given that holding, we have authority to 'set aside' the Plan. . . We choose not to exercise that authority today, but instead grant the Service a reasonable time to adopt a plan that complies with the law. Ninety days from the date of our mandate seems to us ample time for that compliance. The district court may extend that period upon some showing that the court finds compelling; but in any event the Service shall comply forthwith. The district court's judgment is reversed with respect to the claims summarized . . . Meister is entitled to judgment on those claims to the extent described . . . and the claims are remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The district court's judgment is otherwise affirmed."
BTW., Appearing "pro se"? Right! His wife, Kathi Kuehnel practices law with her husband, Kurt Meister, including pro-bono legal work to protect the animal habitat of the Huron Manistee National Forests. She is on the board of this group.
http://www.stewardshipnetwork.org/si...ip_Network.htm
Of course non of this is reported in this article.
http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/i...y_set_new.html
Kurt Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Sep 29: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 09-1712. The Appeals Court says that an agency is not entitled to deference simply because it is an agency. It is true that agencies are more specialized than courts are. But for courts to defer to them, agencies must do more than announce the fact of their comparative advantage; they must actually use it. And that means, among many other things, that the agency must apply -- rather than disregard -- the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria.
Kurt Meister, a Michigan attorney appearing pro se [representing himself], argues that the United States Forest Service disregarded the relevant criteria here. Specifically, he claims that the Service failed to comply with several of its own regulations and one federal statute in developing its 2006 management plan for the Huron-Manistee National Forests in Northern Michigan. For the most part, we agree with him; and to that extent we reverse the district court's entry of judgment in the Service's favor and remand the case so that the Service may comply with those requirements forthwith.
The case concerns the Service's management of recreational activities in the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The Forests occupy about 970,000 acres on each side of the northern one-third of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. In the east, the Huron National Forest ranges between 12 and 30 miles long from north to south, and stretches 60 miles wide from west to east, reaching the shores of Lake Huron. In the west, the Manistee National Forest is about 75 miles long and 40 miles wide, reaching Lake Michigan near Manistee.
The Service issued a management plan for the Forests in 1986. In 2003, the Service published a notice of intent to revise the plan. The Service thereafter held public meetings and solicited public comments as to how to revise the plan. Meister commented on the Plan throughout its development. Those comments reveal fluency with the language of the relevant statutes and regulations; and they explained in considerable detail why Meister thought the Service was not meeting its obligations under the law. His principal comment was that, in developing the Plan, the Service had disregarded certain processes prescribed in its own regulations, so as to favor gun hunters and snowmobile users over other persons—for example, hikers and birdwatchers -- who use the Forests for quiet, solitary activities. He also commented that the Service should close more areas of the Forests to motorized activity than the Service seemed likely to close in the Plan. The Appeals Court said, "It appears that the Service disagreed with all of Meister's comments." Following an administrative appeals, Meister filed suit in district court and the district court granted the Service's motion, holding in general terms that the Service had complied with the applicable regulations. The district court denied Meister's motion.
The Appeals Court summarize its holdings saying, "First, the Service's estimates of snowmobile and cross-country visitors to the Forests are arbitrary. . . Second, the Service has not complied with the requirement that it coordinate its recreational planning with that of the State of Michigan with the aim (to the extent feasible) of "reducing duplication in meeting recreation demands" with respect to gun hunting and snowmobiling. . . Third, the Service's reasons for keeping pre-designation and club trails open to snowmobile use are arbitrary. . . Fourth, the Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it failed to consider whether to close Primitive and Semiprimitive Nonmotorized areas to gun hunting and snowmobile use, as Meister has proposed."
The Appeals Court ruled, "Each of these failures was material to the Plan's development. To that extent, the Plan's approval was arbitrary or without observance of procedures required by law. Given that holding, we have authority to 'set aside' the Plan. . . We choose not to exercise that authority today, but instead grant the Service a reasonable time to adopt a plan that complies with the law. Ninety days from the date of our mandate seems to us ample time for that compliance. The district court may extend that period upon some showing that the court finds compelling; but in any event the Service shall comply forthwith. The district court's judgment is reversed with respect to the claims summarized . . . Meister is entitled to judgment on those claims to the extent described . . . and the claims are remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The district court's judgment is otherwise affirmed."
BTW., Appearing "pro se"? Right! His wife, Kathi Kuehnel practices law with her husband, Kurt Meister, including pro-bono legal work to protect the animal habitat of the Huron Manistee National Forests. She is on the board of this group.
http://www.stewardshipnetwork.org/si...ip_Network.htm
Of course non of this is reported in this article.
