Understand Wilderness Act Training Presentations
FS Resources
This file is part of the FS Resources section at:http://www.wilderness.net/fs/
This presentation should be reviewed and revised as needed
to match the local training objectives and target audience and
local images should be inserted where needed.
The Wilderness Act training presentations are posted in parts
which may be combined or used separately as needed:
•
History and Purpose of the Wilderness Act
•
National Wilderness Preservation System
•
Values and Benefits
•
Definitions and Management
•
Other Laws
•
Stewardship Principles
•
C
o
u
r
t
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
•
FS Policy
•
More Information
Wilderness Court Decisions
“…preserve wilderness character…”
BWCAW – Superior NF
Izaak Walton League v. Kimbell
(D. Minn.) (2007)
“...an agency’s duty to preserve
wilderness character … may apply
to agency activity that occurs
outside the boundaries…. The key
questions in determining whether
agency action violates
§4(b) is
whether that action degrades the
wilderness character…”
“…preserve wilderness character”
Outfiter-guide operations in w
ilderness
Inyo and Sierra NFs
High Sierra Hikers v. Blackwell (9
th
Cir.) (2004)
Balance:
•
Types of activities
•
Need for services in
wilderness, not demand
•
Amount of use the land can
tolerate - capacity
BUT “overarching purpose” is
to “’preserve wilderness
character,” “unimpaired for
future use and enjoyment.”
“…preserve wilderness character…”
Caribou-Targhee National Forests
Heli-skiing in area recommended for wilderness
Greater Yellowstone Coalition vs. Timchak
(D.Idaho) (2006)
“ …preservation of wilderness dominates…”
Road Access to In-holding
Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness
Gallatin NF
Absaroka Trust vs. Glickman
(D. Mont.) (2002)
“…preserve wilderness character…”
Barnes v. Babbitt
(D. Ariz.) (2004)
“The W. Act requires the BLM to
‘preserve the wilderness
character…and [to] so
administer such area for such
other purposes…as also to
preserve its wilderness
character.’”
Because of character of
wilderness, non-motorized
access is adequate
State Authority for Management of
Fish and Wildlife in Wilderness
•
10
th
Amendment
•
Geer v. Connecticut
(1896)
•
Wilderness Act, § 4(d)(8)
•
43 CFR 24.3(b)
Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976)
“Congress’ complete authority over the public lands
includes the power to regulate and protect the
wildlife living there.”
“The Property Clause…gives Congress the power
to protect wildlife on the public lands, state law
notwithstanding.”
“Where…state laws conflict with…legislation
passed pursuant to the Property Clause, the law is
clear: The State laws must recede.”
Hughes v. Oklahoma (1979)
“The cases defining the scope of permissible state
regulation in areas of congressional silence reflect
an often controversial evolution of rules to
accommodate federal and state interests.”
“Geer v. Connecticut…is overruled. Time has
revealed the error of the result reached in Geer
through its application of the 19
th
century legal
fiction of state ownership of wild animals.”
Hunt v. U.S. (1928)
“The power of the United States to…protect its
lands and property does not admit of doubt, the
game laws or any other statute of the state to
the contrary notwithstanding.”
Wyoming v. U.S. (2002)
“State…trustee and police powers over
the…wildlife found on Federal lands…are not
constitutionally-based.”
“In view of [
Kleppe
], we believe the point painfully
apparent that the Tenth Amendment does not
reserve to the State…the right to manage
wildlife.”
“The State…does not have the sovereign power to
manage wildlife on Federal lands.”
Wyoming v. U.S. (2002)
“We must not be guided by a single sentence…but to
look to the provisions of the whole law.”
“By establishing a system ‘to administer a national
network of lands and waters…,’ Congress
undoubtedly intended a preeminent federal role.”
“The saving clause does not deny the [Federal
agency], where at odds with the State, the authority
to make a binding decision.
Wyoming v. U.S. (2002)
“Federal management and regulation…preempts
state management and regulation…to the extent
the two actually conflict, or where state
management and regulation stands as an
obstacle to the accomplishment of the full
purposes and objectives of the Federal
Government.”
Review and revise the Wilderness Act training presentations to align with local training goals and audience. Incorporate relevant images and cover topics like history, values, stewardship, court decisions, and more. Explore legal cases emphasizing the preservation of wilderness character in various jurisdictions.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
This file is part of the FS Resources section at: http://www.wilderness.net/fs/ This presentation should be reviewed and revised as needed to match the local training objectives and target audience and local images should be inserted where needed. The Wilderness Act training presentations are posted in parts which may be combined or used separately as needed: History and Purpose of the Wilderness Act National Wilderness Preservation System Values and Benefits Definitions and Management Other Laws Stewardship Principles Court Decisions FS Policy More Information
preserve wilderness character BWCAW Superior NF Izaak Walton League v. Kimbell (D. Minn.) (2007) ...an agency s duty to preserve wilderness character may apply to agency activity that occurs outside the boundaries . The key questions in determining whether agency action violates 4(b) is whether that action degrades the wilderness character
preserve wilderness character Outfiter-guide operations in wilderness Inyo and Sierra NFs High Sierra Hikers v. Blackwell (9thCir.) (2004) Balance: Types of activities Need for services in wilderness, not demand Amount of use the land can tolerate - capacity BUT overarching purpose is to preserve wilderness character, unimpaired for future use and enjoyment.
preserve wilderness character Caribou-Targhee National Forests Heli-skiing in area recommended for wilderness Greater Yellowstone Coalition vs. Timchak (D.Idaho) (2006)
preservation of wilderness dominates Road Access to In-holding Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Gallatin NF Absaroka Trust vs. Glickman (D. Mont.) (2002)
preserve wilderness character Barnes v. Babbitt (D. Ariz.) (2004) The W. Act requires the BLM to preserve the wilderness character and [to] so administer such area for such other purposes as also to preserve its wilderness character. Because of character of wilderness, non-motorized access is adequate
State Authority for Management of Fish and Wildlife in Wilderness 10thAmendment Geer v. Connecticut (1896) Wilderness Act, 4(d)(8) 43 CFR 24.3(b)
Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) Congress complete authority over the public lands includes the power to regulate and protect the wildlife living there. The Property Clause gives Congress the power to protect wildlife on the public lands, state law notwithstanding. Where state laws conflict with legislation passed pursuant to the Property Clause, the law is clear: The State laws must recede.
Hughes v. Oklahoma (1979) The cases defining the scope of permissible state regulation in areas of congressional silence reflect an often controversial evolution of rules to accommodate federal and state interests. Geer v. Connecticut is overruled. Time has revealed the error of the result reached in Geer through its application of the 19thcentury legal fiction of state ownership of wild animals.
Hunt v. U.S. (1928) The power of the United States to protect its lands and property does not admit of doubt, the game laws or any other statute of the state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Wyoming v. U.S. (2002) State trustee and police powers over the wildlife found on Federal lands are not constitutionally-based. In view of [Kleppe], we believe the point painfully apparent that the Tenth Amendment does not reserve to the State the right to manage wildlife. The State does not have the sovereign power to manage wildlife on Federal lands.
Wyoming v. U.S. (2002) We must not be guided by a single sentence but to look to the provisions of the whole law. By establishing a system to administer a national network of lands and waters , Congress undoubtedly intended a preeminent federal role. The saving clause does not deny the [Federal agency], where at odds with the State, the authority to make a binding decision.
Wyoming v. U.S. (2002) Federal management and regulation preempts state management and regulation to the extent the two actually conflict, or where state management and regulation stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of the Federal Government.
