I warned in a recent Townhall column about the adverse effects of closing off 2.3 million public land acres to new fishing and hunting opportunities.

CBD is also urging USFWS to ban lead bullets and fishing tackle on National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) lands. A senior attorney for the agency recently hinted this option isn’t off the table. Should CBD vs USFWS proceed, it’ll be a wholesale attack on public lands.

Much to CBD’s dismay, hunting is permitted—and welcomed— on NWR lands.

“Hunting is a healthy, traditional recreational use of renewable natural resources deeply rooted in America’s heritage, and it can be an important wildlife management tool,” notes the USFWS website. “The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, other laws, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s policy permit hunting on a national wildlife refuge when it is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and acquired.”

The website adds, “National wildlife refuges exist primarily to safeguard wildlife populations through habitat preservation. The word “refuge” includes the idea of providing a haven of safety for wildlife, and, as such, hunting might seem an inconsistent use of the National Wildlife Refuge System. However, habitat that normally supports healthy wildlife populations produces harvestable surpluses that are a renewable resource.”

In response, a coalition of 40 conservation groups drafted a letter to USFWS Director Martha Williams urging her to not settle.

“The undersigned organizations strongly object to any settlement that would close hunting or fishing or ban the use of traditional ammunition or fishing tackle,” the letter states. “It is especially concerning that the Service might consider closing refuges without any input from the hunting conservation community or state wildlife agencies.”

It continued, “It is our understanding that the National Wildlife Refuge System is underfunded and understaffed. Any settlement that would add to the Service’s financial burden should be summarily rejected. The Service cannot afford to adopt the view of a single interest group that erroneously objects to particular priority  recreational uses successfully allowed on refuges throughout the country.”

“The announcement of a possible settlement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Center for Biological Diversity is alarming but not surprising,” wrote Benjamin Cassidy, Safari Club International executive vice president for International Government and Public Affairs, in an email to Townhall.com. “Access is a priority for hunters and anti-hunting groups such as CBD prioritize closing down access. SCI members have been fighting to make sure that CBD does not have a willing partner in the Service as part of SCI’s No-Net-Loss campaign.  Since the start of the Biden Administration, SCI members have been asking political appointees at the Department of the Interior to commit to not closing down access.  A commitment has yet to be made. Wouldn’t a simple commitment from the Service make this possible settlement less concerning rather than alarming?”

Brian Lynn, vice president of marketing and communications at Sportsmen’s Alliance, similarly echoed Cassidy’s concerns.

“This doesn’t make any sense at all and leaves sportsmen wondering where the Biden administration stands,” Lynn said in an email to Townhall.com. “Just a couple months ago they were touting the largest expansion of hunting on these lands, and now they’re negotiating limits on those same lands. The fact that they are doing so behind closed doors and without input from hunters and hunting organizations is completely unacceptable.”

CBD vs. USFWS is a prime example of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) being weaponized to what amounts to “sue and settle.” Forbes Magazine describes the practice like this:

“Sue and Settle “ practices, sometimes referred to as “friendly lawsuits”, are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein court-ordered “consent decrees” are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors. Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action they and the litigants both want.

“EAJA was passed primarily in response to demands from the small business community, which was laboring under the increased environmental, consumer and health and safety regulations of the 1960s and 1970s,” attorney and author Lowell E. Baier told Bugle Magazine. “The concern was that when an agency such as OSHA or the EPA improperly fined a small business, the small business might win in court but be bankrupted by having to pay its lawyers.”

Fortunately, there is proposed legislation to address the law’s shortcomings.

The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2021 would “impose certain limitations on consent decrees and settlement agreements by agencies that require the agencies to take regulatory action.”

In sum, the Biden administration should heed the concerns of the largest funders of conservation—hunters and anglers—and not be swayed or influenced by performative scam artists like the Center for Biological Diversity.