Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Dept of Interior issues proposed changes to wildlife refuges and hatcheries

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Neither new or improved, but now in Redmond OR
    Posts
    568

    Default Dept of Interior issues proposed changes to wildlife refuges and hatcheries

    The U.S. Dept of Interior has published a proposed change to regulations that would open up several million acres of wildlife refuge and fish hatchery land to hunting and fishing.

    https://www.regulations.gov/document...2020-0013-0001

    It's interesting (and mind numbing) to read the text. On the one hand the Administration Act tasked the D of I with managing these Federally owned lands "first and foremost that we focus our Refuge System mission on conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats." Then the Improvement Act was tacked on:"The Improvement Act requires the Secretary, before allowing a new use of a refuge, or before expanding, renewing, or extending an existing use of a refuge, to determine that the use is compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established " I doubt these lands would have been given the title "Refuge" if hunting and fishing were the purpose for which they were established. The Improvement Act established six covered uses - hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Then the Recreation Act was tacked on to allow "public recreation as an appropriate incidental or secondary use only to the extent that doing so is practicable and not inconsistent with the primary purpose(s) for which Congress and the Service established the areas. The Recreation Act requires that any recreational use of refuge or hatchery lands be compatible with the primary purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and not inconsistent with other previously authorized operations."

    That all sounds good, especially the part about conservation of fish and wildlife and plants being the foremost mission. It seems to me there should always be some land and water that is closed to allow the fish and wildlife a refuge to replenish, restore itself to natural behaviors, etc. And that in turn benefits all hunters and fishermen and wildlife observers and photographers, etc. So if they're going to open a bunch of space, shouldn't there also be a similar amount of space that is closed to allow those areas and associated fish and wildlife to recover. Kind of a system where areas are rotated - some opened for awhile, others closed for awhile.

    I'm also thinking about "why". Is there a good reason to open these lands and fisheries now? I don't give a crap about a political reason so don't even go there. I'm talking about a is there a need? Are there adjacent areas that are over loaded and so there is a need to open more space? Are there deer herds that need culling in an area? I don't see a lot of explanation "why" these changes are needed. In fact, the explanatory material in the proposed rule making states "If the stations establishing new programs were a pure addition to the current supply of those activities, it would mean an estimated maximum increase of 24,763 user days (one person per day participating in a recreational opportunity; see Table 2). Because the participation trend is flat in these activities since 1991, this increase in supply will most likely be offset by other sites losing participants. Therefore, this is likely to be a substitute site for the activity and not necessarily an increase in participation rates for the activity." If the usage is flat, why make any changes at all? And if the proposed openings will result in less usage in other areas, why not implement the rotational system I mentioned earlier and officially close off an equal amount of area? The posting goes on to detail the economic benefits of increasing hunting and fishing but managing and helping the economy isn't the mission or focus of the NWR Admin Act. And I suspect that other than the local hotels, restaurants and bars, the majority of people in these areas would prefer the opposite. So again I ask "why"? There is no reason to make the changes.

    The language also details the cost associated with opening up more land and water. For example, they estimated 5,114 more man hours just to collect, check, authorize and catalog the permits and associated paperwork. If the agencies (and government in general) need to tighten up on expenses, why add more for no good reason? And last, if wild land fires are now one of the top priorities, why would you allow more people to access more remote, rugged land, introducing the camp fires and smoking into areas that currently have little or no risk associated with fires and smoking?

    I think this has to be big "No vote" from me.
    Last edited by DLJeff; 04-09-2020 at 09:24 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    7,786

    Default

    "Dept of Interior issues proposed changes to wildlife refuges and hatcheries." I've read part of the proposed changes and your comments and it looks like you've asked/answered most of my concerns. I'm trying to figure out why it was necessary to include hatcheries in a proposal to open refuge acreage to hunting/fishing, etc.?? Maybe the rest of the text will explain that....
    "America is a country which produces citizens who will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote."

    Author unknown

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    O'vale Ca., Estes Park Co.
    Posts
    131

    Default

    1.3% spending on average within 100 miles of areas used. More people more land needed. I’m assuming the “Hatchery” is planted lakes streams/rivers?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Neither new or improved, but now in Redmond OR
    Posts
    568

    Default

    I'm not sure what you're question is. But the status of the local economy is NOT the mission for the Dept of Int nor for the FWS. It should not be decision point one way or the other. Their mission is to manage Federally controlled land for the conservation of wildlife, fish and fauna. We fishermen would love more water to fish. But we also need to be stewards of the very resources we use. Keeping some land and water wild and closed to the public will only help provide animals, fish and fauna a place to replenish and in the future, repopulate areas that get over used. I submitted comments accordingly.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    7,786

    Default Opening More Land??

    DLJeff,.... After reading further and taking into account prior comments, I'm finding myself agreeing with your questions. Not wanting to get into a more extensive political discussion and without satisfactory answers, I'm lead to one conclusion. This proposal must be driven by the agenda of a political and/or special interest (e.g. Sagebrush Rebellion, etc.).
    "America is a country which produces citizens who will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote."

    Author unknown

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Neither new or improved, but now in Redmond OR
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darian View Post
    DLJeff,.... After reading further and taking into account prior comments, I'm finding myself agreeing with your questions. Not wanting to get into a more extensive political discussion and without satisfactory answers, I'm lead to one conclusion. This proposal must be driven by the agenda of a political and/or special interest (e.g. Sagebrush Rebellion, etc.).
    It certainly smell that way, Darian. Unless I'm missing something (maybe missing a lot), there is no reasonable reason to open these currently closed areas. I sent in a comment opposing the proposal, using the points I made above as my rationale.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •