Wildlife Refuges in Peril!

T

TFinalshot

Guest
I'm not saying, I'm just saying. . . .


SALT LAKE CITY
Deseret Morning News, Thursday, April 26, 2007

Funds for wildlife refuges are drying up

Group says budget cuts have put sites 'in peril'

By Joe Bauman
Deseret Morning News

Two of the three national wildlife refuges in Utah are so underfunded that supposedly "permanent" positions are not being filled. The backdrop is that most of the 520-plus refuges managed by the National Wildlife Service are strapped for money.

"Restoring America's Wildlife Legacy 2007," a report issued Wednesday by a coalition of advocacy groups called Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), says Congress provided modest funding increases from 1998 until 2003. But later, "subsequent budget cuts have put the refuge system in peril."

Among a host of groups in CARE are the American Birding Association, American Fisheries Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Ducks Unlimited Inc., National Audubon Society, National Rifle Association, the Wilderness Society and Trout Unlimited.

"Years of inadequately funding our nation's wildlife refuges have put the viability of the refuge system at risk," said Maribeth Oakes of the Wilderness Society.

CARE recommends that $765 million in operation and maintenance funding be appropriated "to adequately address the fiscal crisis facing the National Wildlife Refuge System."

It says the present year's budget is half that much. Just to keep pace with increasing expenses, the budget needs a $15 million boost, it adds.

David Eisenhauer, Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman in Washington, D.C., said funding for the refuge system increased from about $300 million a year in 2001 to about $383 million. Although that seems like an impressive 28 percent boost, much of the additional money went for security at the country's "borderlands" and to combat invasive weed species.

"The operational budget hasn't kept pace with increases" in rising salaries and operating costs, he said. Congress ordered raises for federal employees but then kept the F&WS operating budget flat. As a result, fewer positions can be filled.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has been saying that it needs about $15 million more per year in additional operating funds.

Each of the agency's regions has studied its work force to see which staff positions won't be filled should a person retire or move to another job. The purpose, he said, is "to take these dollars and move them to the field. ...

"That's just to continue to provide the wildlife habitat we need" and to carry out other responsibilities of the refuge system.

Dean Rundle, F&WS program supervisor for refuges in Utah, Montana and Wyoming, based in Lakewood, Colo., said that in the eight states of Region 6, the agency has not filled about 43 permanent positions.

These posts were not filled in Utah when they became vacant:

? At Ouray National Wildlife Refuge, 30 miles southwest of Vernal, about 11,987 acres, including a 12-mile stretch of the Green River set aside for migratory birds: "They have a maintenance worker and an administration position vacant that are not being filled," Rundle said.

? At Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge, 17,992 acres with marshlands amounting to about 10,000 acres, located near Dugway Proving Ground in the western desert: "The system manager job at Fish Springs was vacated and not filled, so Fish Springs Refuge is down to only four employees now," Rundle said.

If optimal funding were available, the refuge would also have a wildlife biologist and a biological technician, he added.

Ideally, Rundle said, "they would have an assistant manager for the Colorado River Wildlife Management Area." This is a management area of 955 acres (as of 2001) of private land on the Green River, held as conservation easements with willing landowners.

The easements, intended to protect endangered fish, are located in Utah and Colorado in the vicinity of Dinosaur National Monument.

Besides positions not filled, refuges have unmet needs like roofs and equipment that should be replaced, and new construction.

According to Rundle, Utah's premier refuge ? Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, 74,000 acres of marshland near Brigham City ? has suffered no position losses. Besides seasonal part-time workers, the refuge has 11 employees.

"The Bear River's a high priority for us," he said.

Still, the refuge's Web site, www.fws.gov/bearriver, carries this notice: "The road construction on Forest Street that had been scheduled for the summer of 2007 has been postponed."

An F&WS regional "Workforce Plan," prepared in February and released by the alliance, lists all three Utah refuges as targeted for staff reductions, among 42in the region.

Three positions that had been filled in Utah have been abolished, with another slated to be lost by the end of Fiscal Year 2009.

Why hasn't Congress given wildlife refuges more money?

"We had a recession, and we have a war to be fought," Rundle said, "and Congress has a lot of challenges there."
 
Sell it all then we wont have to listen to the buerocrats on the teet complain and it will be better taken care of and served for man kind.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-26-07 AT 02:59PM (MST)[p]I think most red-blooded Amercians value our public lands and abundant wildlife opportunites. We also are willing to support a public lands system, for without it, this would NOT be the United States of Amercia. . . Your plan, 02, gets us swiftly back to England. . .
 
202, you've stepped out so far to the right on this one even your right wing fanatics are going to watch from the side lines.
 
202,selling it will be the beginning of the end of hunting for the common man in this country. Unless somebody can generate enough income to sustain it then it will most likely get sold for development by the impoverished owners and that would be a huge loss of habitat. Not a good idea at all 202!
 
202,
Thats one of the most idiotic things ive heard in a long time. I do believe Texas is a good example of what we DONT need to turn the Western U.S. into.
ismith

45f82e4d30de4f30.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-26-07 AT 03:49PM (MST)[p]Selling off public lands held in trust for the American people would be like selling the milk cow. It's okay for the money you get today but what do you do when you need milk again?


Without public lands hunting in this country would be on the model of Texas. Pay for everything. There is a public interest in having large areas of public lands. The can and should be debate about the proper uses of public lands but selling them is an extreme position.

I think the CMR is currently understaffed as well

Nemont
 
My only question, what is congress doing about this? The Dems have the majority of votes, are they going to fix it or stick it where the sun does not shine.

RELH
 
Right now it's trying to put the wheels back on the buss and patch the hull of a sinking ship. . .
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-26-07 AT 07:45PM (MST)[p]Sorry all of you bunny huggers! Gotta agree with 202 on this
one. READ IT CAREFULLY! They are wildlife REFUGES! No hunting allowed. They have nothing to do with our hunting RIGHTS. As a matter of fact......they hurt our hunting rights!
As far as selling em off. I would agree w/ the bunny huggers/anti's in hunters clothing on this site. That would be bad. Most likely a developer would buy it and ruin very pretty land. DO NOT MIX YOUR ARGUMENT WITH HUNTING THOUGH!
Archerman - Archery hunting addict!
 
Beanman,
Yes, they do allow hunting on occasion. Let me give you an example. Nebraska allowed very limited entry last year on a few refuges (after numerous years of no access). Very limited. The reason for this was that the animals were killing the refuge! How is it that these refuges are such a great idea?
Now.....let me say....I was playing with everyone with that last post and the names, but......I do not agree that the Gov't should be funding these things. Let all the environmental groups give em their money. They only think it's a good idea if they fund their stupid attorneys and have us tax paying citizens pay the price tag! That's where my problem lies.
Archerman - Archery hunting addict!
 
PS....I have been ..........on occasion.........called a............well........pot stirrer. There..... I admitted it! :)
Archerman - Archery hunting addict!
 
Archerman:

You must be joking.

In case you are not, many of the refuges allow hunting. The Charles M. Russell Wildlife Refuge in MT is one of the most utilized archery tags/hunts in the country. In 2006, over 2,000 people hunted archery and rifle elk on the units that include the refuge. As many, or more deer and antelope hunters hunted the same units. Over 30 Bighorn sheep tags were issued in these units.

Those that don't allow hunting are critical migratory bird staging and wintering areas. Even if they don't allow hunting, they are critical for the waterfowl hunters.

No need for politics to be part of this discussion. As hunters, we need to demand adequate funding, regardless of which part is in power.

How interesting that it was 101 years ago that Theodore Roosevelt established the refuge system. He did so against the wishes of his fellow Republicans. Now, 100 years later, anyone with a brain would call his conservation priorities a stroke of genius, but there are still those politicians (on both sides) who cannot see the light. JMHO.

Happy hunting!


"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
BigFin,
Sorta joking, sorta not. Actually, the only experience I have with refuges is the Nebraska thing. I don't know of any refuges in the states I've lived in that allowed hunting at ANY time! Now......the rules have obviously changed over the years in other states so I stand corrected on that point. I don't know that I am still in with the "the gov't should support them" concept. I am also not so sure that Roosevelt started the "refuges".....I seem to remember that he started conservation in this country with public lands, and BLM lands came from that.Archerman - Archery hunting addict!
 
I DO agree that we need to protect our public lands from the urban sprawl. The question is......how do you do that effectively? Here in AZ.......admittedly "just a bunch of desert", the farm land (which used to be vast......hundreds of thousands of acres) is dissappearing at an astounding rate! I mean.......alarmingly so. With that said, how can it be protected while still protecting the rights of landowners, hunters, outdoorsman, and business owners? Can you legislate it? NOT! Can we rely on the gov't to perform this function properly? Definetely NOT! Can we afford to think the environmentalist will do anything but kill our hunting rights? Hell no!
So.....what do you suggest? No BS either T-final......solid ideas.
Archerman - Archery hunting addict!
 
Archerman, actually I've NEVER been to a wildlife refuge where you CAN NOT hunt. In fact, many of them are grazed and even cut for hay.

I also think that's it cool that you can admit when youre wrong.

Just for the record, and because you seem like you actually want to know more, check this out. . .

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/centennial/
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-26-07 AT 08:54PM (MST)[p]archerman, how do you think all that water got on all that arizona land? That's right, uncle sam and the american tax payer. . .

In your spare time go pick up one or both of these books, both by Mark Reisner.

"overtapped oaisis"
"cadillac desert"

Marc Reisner was best known as the author of Cadillac Desert (1986), a historical account of the American West's romance with dams, aqueducts and irrigation, the artificial paradise they have created, and the troubling environmental problems they have left us to confront. In April of 1999, a panel of authors and critics convened by The Modem Library ranked Cadillac Desert 61st among its selection of the 100 most notable works of nonfiction written in English in the 20th century. A finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle Award in 1986, as well as the Bay Area Book Reviewers' Award (BABRA), Cadillac Desert was made into a $2.8 million, 4.5 hour documentary film series, which first aired on PBS nationwide in 1997 and won a Columbia University/Peabody Award.
 
OK T-Final......how does the US gov't messing up the desert with the aquaducts and dams in your opinion jibe with you wanting them to fund even more to the refuges to "help" them?
Also, I grew up in AK hunting and fishing and can GAURANTEE you we were not allowed to hunt on ANY refuge while I was still there! I can also tell you it is a scary thing watching the erosion of our hunting RIGHTS. I saw it while in AK and have not seen it stop since being in the lower 48. I have been fighting this battle for a long.....long time and it is frustrating watching the slow burn!
Archerman - Archery hunting addict!
 
BTW.......I HATE when that happens! The......ummmmm. wr....wr.......wr........wr....well.....you know! :)
Archerman - Archery hunting addict!
 
Refuges are an important and sometimes essential conservation tool, hunting on them is just a side benefit. in many areas the game we hunt depends on them to survive like in Jackson Hole, look at the big picture.
 
"US gov't messing up the desert with the aquaducts and dams in your opinion jibe with you wanting them to fund even more to the refuges to "help" them?"

It really does not. But I always find it amusing when people run the government down but live in places where if NOT for government, they would not live. So, for Arizona and many, many other places in the west, one should be careful not to bite the hand that feeds it. The phoenix area would never have been possible, at this scale, if not for huge, huge public subsidies and the capacity of the big government to engineer and develop on a massive scale, water projects.
 
Many refuges in California provide protection and habitat for waterfowl. Virtually all of them allow some hunting. But only on a small portion of the refuge. Most of the money from the sale of Migratory Bird Hunting Stamps (Federal duck stamps) goes to support these refuges. Any duck hunter must purchase one to hunt waterfowl, regardless if they hunt the refuges or not. That's fine with us waterfowl hunters.

One gripe we have always had is the fact that we are charged, but the bird watchers and photographers use the refuge free of charge. I say start letting all the people who use the refuges pay their fair share.
 
"I say start letting all the people who use the refuges pay their fair share."

I agree, but how to we then deal with the equidy issues? For example, when I want to go photograph ducks in December, I guess you'll have to take a powder. . .
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-07 AT 03:14PM (MST)[p]Bob, that's the way all refuges should operate.

Tony, there is no conflict if a photographer wants to photorgaph during the season. As I stated, only a portion of a refuge is open to hunting. Usually only 20% max. In fact the "closed" areas will have more birds to photograph on shoot days, as the birds figure out pretty quick that cameras are safer than shotguns! Good question though.

If a photographer insists on photographing in the hunt area, he should make sure and belong to AAA.:)

Steve
 
I use to kill ducks like there were no more days left, anymore, I just watch them fly around. . . Dont even like to photogarph them much, but also understand that there are conflicting uses for our wildlife, everyone should pay, one way or another. That's way I always have advocated for wildlife fees or taxes on those that destroy habitat, or kill deer without a licence - autos, trains etc. tens of thousands of deer are killed each year by cars, why, just because I put one down with a single shot do I have to pay extra to kill one? If I hit it with my car, I get to kill it for free. . .
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom