Contact: John Culclasure, Southeastern States Assistant Director
On February 11, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) submitted comments in support of the rule proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service that would clarify their consultation requirements under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Specifically, the proposed rule would clarify that consultation does not need to be reinitiated for previously approved land management plans when new information reveals that effects of a plan may, in a manner or extent not previously considered, affect a listed species or critical habitat. The proposed rule would remove ambiguity caused by the Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service decision that has been used as the basis for litigation to delay forest management projects across the country.
CSF’s letter stated, “The revisions would remove ambiguity stemming from Cottonwood for Section 7 ESA consultation at the programmatic level, and we believe the changes are needed to allow the USFS and BLM to implement forest health and wildlife habitat projects without hinderance from litigation or threats of litigation over duplicative consultations.”
CSF supports using active forest management tools to improve wildlife habitat, increase forest resiliency, and improve access and opportunity for sportsmen and women. CSF looks forward to the rule being finalized to improve federal land management.
Share this page
Your opinion counts
In the past year ammunition sales have surged for a variety of reasons. As a result, many ammunition retailers have struggled to keep up with the demand and prices have increased dramatically for some of the more popular rounds. Has this affected your ability to enjoy hunting and recreational shooting activities?Vote Here
- Yes, I have been unable to purchase needed ammunition. (53.13%)
- Yes, I have had to pay higher costs to purchase needed ammunition. (18.75%)
- Yes, I have been unwilling to pay higher costs for ammunition and have decreased my participation in hunting and/or recreational shooting. (21.88%)
- No, my participation in hunting and/or recreational shooting has not been affected. (6.25%)