Neighbors Against Bison Slaughter and Bonnie Lynn v. National Park Service
This is a federal district court motion hearing in the case Neighbors Against Bison Slaughter and Bonnie Lynn v. National Park Service, concerning bison management just outside Yellowstone National Park.
What the hearing is about
The plaintiffs (Neighbors Against Bison Slaughter and Bonnie Lynn) ask the court to reopen a previously remanded and administratively closed case so they can obtain a ruling on the merits.
They argue the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service have failed to comply with NEPA and other legal obligations in managing Yellowstone wild bison, particularly regarding hunting and slaughter on adjacent Forest Service lands.
Plaintiffs’ key arguments
The Forest Service allegedly failed to prepare a supplemental EIS despite “72 new circumstances and information developments” since a 2000 EIS, including large‑scale bison killing on a small area of Forest Service land and significant environmental and safety impacts.
Plaintiffs contend the Forest Service wrongly disclaimed jurisdiction over bison hunting on its lands even though FLPMA gives it authority, and that the agencies delegated federal decision‑making power to a non‑federal body (the Interagency Bison Management Plan, IBMP) in a way Congress never authorized.
They describe graphic consequences of current management (hundreds of bison killed in a confined area, blood running from Beattie Gulch) and argue NEPA required a new, joint EIS and record of decision by both agencies addressing these impacts and treaty, environmental, and animal‑protection concerns.
Procedural history discussed
Plaintiffs first sued in 2019, challenging the IBMP implementation and specifically the 2019 operation plan, along with claims that NEPA required supplemental analysis and that the agencies’ failures to act were reviewable final agency actions.
While the parties were approaching summary judgment, the agencies sought voluntary remand; the district court remanded without a firm deadline, and plaintiffs appealed that lack of a deadline to the Ninth Circuit.
On the eve of Ninth Circuit oral argument, the Park Service issued a Notice of Intent to complete a new EIS and eventually produced a draft EIS, FEIS, and a 2024 Record of Decision (ROD); the Ninth Circuit ultimately declined to impose a deadline, finding no unreasonable delay once the EIS process had begun.
Back in district court, the agencies and plaintiffs filed periodic status reports on the EIS process while incidents (including a ricochet shooting injury at Beattie Gulch) continued during hunting seasons.
Closure of the first case and dispute over its meaning
After the Park Service issued the 2024 FEIS and ROD, the district judge issued an order directing the clerk to “close the matter,” and the same day amended that order to remove “enter judgment,” which plaintiffs interpret as an administrative closure rather than a merits judgment.
Plaintiffs emphasize that:
There was no judgment on the merits,
No Rule 41/42 dismissal stipulation, and
The Forest Service never issued its own EIS or ROD, despite having requested remand.
They argue a voluntary remand cannot function as a dismissal: both agencies asked for remand, the Park Service acted, but the Forest Service did not, so their claims against the Forest Service remain live.
Current motion and issues in February 2026
Plaintiffs seek to reopen the old case rather than file a new one, arguing that:
Their challenges to the 2000 joint Record of Decision and 2019 operation plan are still live and not moot, because the Forest Service continues to implement that framework and issue annual operation plans.
The Ninth Circuit explicitly left room for them to return to district court if unreasonable delay or failures to cure the violations persisted after remand.
The judge questions why plaintiffs do not simply challenge the new 2024 ROD in a fresh case or consolidate with other pending challenges (e.g., brought by the State of Montana and another group), and presses them on what practical difference reopening versus refiling would make.
Plaintiffs respond that their case targets different final agency actions (the 2000 IBMP ROD and 2019 operation plan, and Forest Service inaction), and they have already built a record and drafted summary judgment briefing over six years; they say they would not oppose consolidation for efficiency but want their original claims heard.
Plaintiffs’ position on agency obligations
They maintain that both agencies must perform NEPA and issue appropriate records of decision; having the Park Service alone complete an EIS and ROD, with the Forest Service only as a cooperating agency, does not satisfy the Forest Service’s independent duties, especially for actions on Forest Service land where hunting occurs.
They argue the IBMP structure unlawfully locks in “gridlock” by giving a multi‑party body effective veto power over federal decisions, and that the Forest Service is still participating in and implementing an unconstitutional and environmentally harmful framework.
In short, the hearing centers on whether the long‑running Neighbors Against Bison Slaughter case—focused on NEPA compliance and federal authority over Yellowstone bison hunting on Forest Service lands—should be reopened so the plaintiffs can obtain a merits ruling against the Forest Service, despite the Park Service’s completion of a new 2024 EIS and ROD and the administrative closure of the earlier suit.
