This page is the archived version of the draft vision for the National Wildlife Refuge System that was available for public comment starting on February 22, 2011 until April 22 – Earth Day. The revised “conference draft” of the vision document and all current information related to the vision document itself is online at AmericasWildlife.org/vision.
Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation is a national effort to craft a renewed vision for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The work of five core teams of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees was consolidated into this single, draft vision document and was opened for comment and review from February 24, 2011 until Earth Day – April 22. Click here to learn more about the vision process.
Download a copy (.pdf) of the archived draft vision. Please consider the environment before printing this document. You can also download a copy of the draft recommendations.
You can start reading this archived version at Chapter 1: Introduction or anywhere you want in the table of contents.
The transparency and collaborative spirit of this process was possible through the power of partnership. The National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) developed this interactive website as one means to openly engage diverse audiences to take part in lively conversations about the core teams’ focal areas, even as the core teams were writing their draft recommendations. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) is an organization of State fish and wildlife agencies that promotes sound management and conservation. They speak with a collective voice on important fish and wildlife issues and they agreed to have the Chair of their Federal and Tribal Relations Committee serve on the Steering Committee for Conserving the Future along with the National Wildlife Refuge Association.
This draft vision document begins in Chapter 1 with a look back at the Refuge System’s history of dealing with urgent conservation challenges through innovation, perseverance and leadership. It goes on to describe how the challenges of a changing planet and America affect the Refuge System’s conservation work and mission. Chapter 2 explains the vision for planning, designing, and delivering strategic conservation in the future. Chapter 3 focuses on the importance of conservation science in managing the Refuge System. Chapter 4 – called Human – Nature – recommends how the Refuge System can connect people with America’s great outdoors and engage them in the stewardship of their Refuge System. Chapter 5 lays out recommendations for organizational excellence, and Chapter 6 addresses the need to ensure that leadership development keeps pace with the challenges facing the Service.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Chapter 1: Introduction
-
Chapter 2: Conserving the Future
- Strategically Conserving Fish and Wildlife
- Delivering Fish and Wildlife Conservation
- Strategic Growth
- Protecting Wildlife: The Role of Conservation Law Enforcement
- Managing Wildlife Refuges for Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health
- Managing Refuges to Support Ecological Resilience and Climate Adaptation
- Issues, Concerns, and Systemic Challenges in Managing for Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health
- Chapter 3: Conservation Science and the Refuge System
- Chapter 4: Human – Nature
- Chapter 5: Organizational Excellence
- Chapter 6: Leadership in a Landscape of Change
Read a final message related to the draft vision: “Not Yet a Conclusion“- comments can be left at the bottom of the pages of the draft vision document or emailed to .
To learn more about the overall vision process, visit http://americaswildlife.org/about/
70 Comments in this post »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
I’d like to leave a few comments about the draft vision. Overall – sounds great. But plans and visions always make me nervous without any numbers/funding to back them up. Without that…they are just talk.
1. Climate change: There is a great and actually bold quote about climate change in the draft. Very glad to see it. But the Recommendations dealing with climate change do not even come close to meeting it’s boldness. USFWS is way behind and only slowly catching up on dealing with this issue…and having recommendations that talk about plans or ‘adapting to’ climate change as we learn more, are downright embarassing coming from a science and conservation agency. Stop planning and talking and DO SOMETHING. We are well behind other agencies and organizations and our refuges and wildlife are suffering NOW. How much more do we need to plan and talk about it. DO!
2. Youth: I am a huge proponent for getting youth experience on Refuges – working, volunteering, training, learning – but again…I see little to no funding for these programs, only the talk about how important they will be for our future success and survival. Ideas are great – impletmentation and actual actions are better.
3. Going Green(er): My comment comes from the same place. A recommendation for a 5-year plan is good…but that will take time, effort and money and frankly – as with climate change – we’re wasting more time than I think we have. ACT! DO! Let’s be an Agency that is known for our actions and not how great our 5, 10 and 15 year plans (that each take countless hrs and dollars to prepare) look on our book shelves. I understand you cannot just go and do “willy-nilly,” but at the same time…our culture of plan, plan and plan some more is keeping is behind the eight ball in almost every field. In these days where we are finally catching up and utilizing some amazing new media to reach visitors, children, partners, etc – we have the tools to be able to move MUCH faster than we do. So why don’t we?! Before we finish our next 5-Year Plan only to find that during the planning…what we were planning to save had already disappeared.
I have many more comments, ideas, but instead of continuing to talk about them…I am going to take my own advice and DO! I have lots of that which needs my attention.
Seems to me this vision is cloudy only taking into account wildlife management as a priority, where’s the fish in fish and wildlife service? The majority of quote wildlife refuges have aquatic resources including fishery resources, not much mentioned regarding the aquatic resources or impact to them from wildlife refuge management strategies. what ever happened to a holistic approach for fish and wildlife? Seems like two distinct focuses instead of one specific fish and wildlife agency. Seems to me like the Service loses credibility by just focusing on one area or arena. let’s face it without the aquatic resources where would ducks be?
First, I must confess that I haven’t finished reading the entire document…. and I really should. And I will! But I’ve read though some of the parts/chapters that interest me the most.
Secondly, I also confess that I approach this sort of document from the viewpoint of a birder and also a bird conservationist.
From the viewpoint of a birder, I am pleased. The visitor-services sections on the growth of birding and the responsiveness of the System to that growth are appropriate and heartening. That’s great.
From the viewpoint of a bird conservationist, I am disappointed. When the document talks about strategic growth, partnerships, and “beyond the boundaries, it’s as if the major advances in bird conservation over the past 25 years have never happened.
For example, I did a simple search for “joint ventures,” “NAWCA,” “HAPET,” “NAWMP,” and “Partners in Flight”…. and came up with no references in the document. (Yes, everyone may not know that those initials mean, but refuge insiders and bird conservationists certainly should.) Similarly, old-time standards of bird-and-land conservation seem to be missing, especially when it comes to their role in strategic growth. Try looking up “stamp,” “MBCC,” and “LWCF” for starters. On second thought, don’t. They’re simply not in there.
Yes, bird conservation is packed into chapter 1: TR, Pelican Island, start of the refuges. That’s nice. But is bird conservation only part of our Refuge System’s past?
Please Prevent Wolf Control on Alaska Refuges.
Please also upgrade status of ANWR to National monument status.
Please outlaw trapping and aerial hunting in America’s Wildlife Refuges.
We need to protect wolves on our national wildlife refuges. I am a long time resident of Alaska. State goals are usually very short-sighted and narrow minded in terms of protecting a species for an entire planet, whether you ever see that animal in person or not. Should the protection of such species as panda bears, polar bears, important plants, birds, etc. be left to the sole discretion of the state/nation where they reside? Just because I’ll never see a leopard in my life does not mean that it’s not important for them to have continued habitat protection. Alaska tends to make decisions that are economically influenced. We don’t want to protect polar bears from extinction because it would mean limited gas/oil exploration. They don’t want to protect wolves because they want to appease users above all else. We need a national focus/international emphasis to protect the species. Fishermen don’t want to protect sea lions because it influences their catch. I could go on and on. My main point is that if you leave it up to the people who are primarily economically influenced, they will most likely not make decisions that are based on science if it will hit them in the pocketbook.
I haven’t read the entire document, just the recommendations and would like to see a comparison of the recommendations from 1999 to 2011. I think it is important to see a discourse on why some things have happened and why some have not. Do we make the same recommendations again even if we can’t accomplish them? In general there are many recommendations here that represent a diversity of interests. they need some tiering or prioritization
Recommendation 2.3 mentions a policy and implementation plan. Is this developing specific new policies? Which ones are the most important and should be prioritized?
Recommendations 2.8 and 2.26 seem to be duplicitous.
Recommendation 4.3 is a concern. Are there really areas where there should be opportunities on refuges where there are not. I think an analysis would be in order forist of unmet needs prior to making a recommendation to support more access.
Recommendation 4.5 I would add “ass appropriate” for refuges within regional transportation reach of urban areas.
Recommendations 4.24 and 4.25 remind me of an educational strategy put together earlier in the Refuge Systems history, I believe it was called “Connecting People with Nature” It focused on certain refuges being “centers of leadership” in Environmental Education and should be moved forward as a recommendation.
Recommendation 5.7 Seems to be a replacement for our annual narratives (recently demised) Seems like an idea that needs some fleshing out in a time of fiscal restraint.
Recommendation 5.9 is an excellent idea and should be a priority.
Recommendation 5.13 is an excellent idea and should be a priority
Recommendation 5.17 needs more explanation before it could be understood, Appears like we are applying a deplyment mdel (i.e. Law Enforcement) to other specialist positons.
Recommendation 5.21 is an excellent recommendation and should be a priority.
I was dissappointed to not see an emphasis on trainee positions.
More to come as the process evolves I am sure.
Partners seem to be focused on outside the agency instead of within. Other programs are essential in assisting in the management of refuges, but won’t be able to under the proposed service budget where huge increases are requested to buy up more land we won’t be able to manage unless we close out the other programs and move people to support only refuges.
I finished reading the draft this evening. I am waiting for the bold ideas. In fact, I am waiting for any ideas at all. I am trying to recall which recommendations in the draft have not been enunciated (formally or not) before. What I fear is that the draft is, first and foremost, safe.
Here is an example. I must disagree with my friend Paul Baicich about the inclusion of wildlife watching and birding. Given the size of that constituency, the specific recommendations are nonexistent. The birding initiative has produced little other than debate and discussion. When the opportunity comes to include specific recommendations for birding, wildlife watching, and photography, the draft is silent.
The three recommendations concerning Connecting People with Nature only mention hunting and fishing. If you wish to truly connect more Americans to their natural heritage, wouldn’t you read your own research about which wildlife recreations are growing and which are not? You may
double youth participation in hunting and fishing on national wildlife refuges by 2020, but that will not stem the decline in hunting and fishing (particularly the former). Wildlife watching continues to be the only effective recruitment tool within the wildlife recreation tool chest, and yet you completely ignore it.
Here is a bold idea. Rather than obsessing over the nation’s hunting heritage, why not focus on our wildlife heritage? Give our citizens an opportunity to connect with this heritage as they wish, rather than shoehorn them into a pastime that has no meaning for them. Set a priority to double visitation to the refuges by everyone by 2020, rather than one or two declining recreations.
The recommendations regarding interpretation are excellent, except the training program already exists and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Use the NAI training program, and certify staff. In addition, budget reasonable funds for interpretive programs and enhancements. The general public is not experienced in natural history, and the conservation value of the refuge can be measured by those who leave a refuge better informed as to the challenges we face.
Anthony Burgess wrote that “the country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent, experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it, if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
Next version, try bold.
I’m still reading through the draft and will have further comments, but I can’t get past my slight bewilderment with the opening quote:
“Wild beasts and birds are by right not the property merely of the people who are alive today, but the property of unborn generations, whose belongings we have no right to squander.” President Theodore Roosevelt
I admire Teddy Roosevelt greatly, but this is a strange quote to use for the opening of this draft.
Aldo Leopold has been mentioned as a guiding force to this Vision process, in part because of his revolutionary ideas on wildlife conservation and also in part because the 2011 Vision Conference will be held in his old backyard — Wisconsin.
But I think even Aldo would be offended by this antiquated way of viewing wildlife as nothing but an item that we own — like toothpaste and automobiles. In fact, Aldo expressed just such a thought when he talked about our failure to see ourselves as part of the natural community. Maybe you should use this quote instead:
“Conservation is getting nowhere because it is incompatible with our Abrahamic concept of land. We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”
I also would like to include my 2 cents about the opening quote.
The opening quote sounds a little out of touch.
Consider an opening statement along the lines of one off Cheif Seattle’s speeches.
Here are exerpets from one of his speeches.
All things are connected.
The earth does not belong to us, we belong to the earth.
Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the children of the earth.
We did not weave the web-of life, we are merely a strand in it.
Whatever we do the web, we do to our selves.
Here is what I am proposing, perhaps someone more verbally astute than myself could use the above speech as a template, to write and or
word-smith an opening statement using the above words as a template that would inter-twine with the mission of the USFWS.
Food for thought.
Amplifying on what Paul Baicich said above, major advances that have happened in recent decades really should be included in the introduction section someplace, I think, and so should a direct mention that this is the first Refuge System-wide vision effort since “Fulfilling the Promise” effort in the late ’90s.
All that this would require, in my estimation, is one well-placed paragraph in the introduction. It doesn’t have to be long and complicated, but it does need to acknowledge “Promises” and recent advances in conservation management. Maybe something like this someplace in the intro:
“Since ‘Fulfilling the Promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System’ in the late 1990s, the Refuge System has made great strides in the wildlife management, land acquisition, strategic habitat growth, conservation partnerships, fire management, visitor services, Friends involvement and personnel training, but the world has changed markedly since then. For instance, the term ‘climate change’ doesn’t appear at all and the word ‘Internet’ appears just once in ‘Promises.’ So, it is time for a renewed vision that builds on that past and looks to the future. This document is designed to outline that vision.”
Lets not get hung up on opening statements etc. What’s the meat of the document? In this case it seems like business as usual. Let’s face the fact that the Refuge system is made up of clusters of land that support a variety of fish and wildlife. Remember, not one Refuge has ever produced a duck, ducks produce themselves as do the other fish and wildlife that inhabit a Refuge. As for a product produced by Refuges it is land management or mainpulation depending on how you see it. From farming to grazing, all sorts of determined compatible uses, that’s what a Refuge is. So the benefit is the land and the habitat to support fish and wildlife, in my opinion that’s the true value, everything else should rank down the list. So lets not over think the original intent of a Refuge or put too many demands on it to support human activities since they were not meant or garnered for us, they were meant to provide suitable habitat for fish and wildlife. I would argue that the general population has associated value knowing that these Refuge areas are in place providing habitat for fish and wildife. Just as they know fish inhabit water but they can’t always see them, touch them or disturb them. The aquatic resources of this country are in trouble and the Refuge System should be more concerned about them. Once again where’s the Fish in Fish and Wildlife? Certainly not on a Refuge!
I have a simple question. Who are the “partners?” I understand that the core teams consist of agency personnel, but I repeatedly see references to “partners.” Is there a list of these “partners:?”
I agree the opening quote is not the “meat,” but it sets the tone for the document, which is why it’s at the very beginning. If an opening quote from the history of U.S. conservation is going to be used, it should be appropriate to the forward-thinking vision that this document hopes to develop.
My gut feeling about the current draft document, is that there is something critical missing from the draft document. There’s something…and I know it needs to be in there, but we haven’t quite found it or identified it yet…when we get it in there, it should be that when we read the document, most of us say….”Ah, yes…that’s IT, NOW we’re getting bold, NOW we’re getting to the critical elements…yes, this IS a vision…”
That’s why we are having public review…your comments are so important, so what do the rest of you think? What is missing? If you had to identify only one, key critical missing idea from the draft document, what would it be?
On p. 34-35 Broadening refuge visitation and use there is a statement (underlined below) that has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever. “….uses like jogging, picnicking, sun bathing, dog walking and bike riding. Many people enjoy such
uses, which may not harm wildlife if the number of participants is limited. Refuge managers have become rightly cautious because they have seen what happens to wildlife resources when participation is too large and incompatible.”
I think this emphasizes the real problem with the refuge compatible use policy and its application – there is no science or regional planning guidance to back up public use decisions one way or the other. Referring again to the statement above, small impacts from picnicking or dog walking could be very detrimental in certain habitats and/or at certain times. But, the current implementation of the policy leaves these decisions up to refuge management. Thus managers are left to decide on their own with no real guidance (and not all of them decide to protect wildlife in lieu of allowing public use). There are broad guidelines for recreation that could be used regionally or nationwide (like the NPS has done). The piecemeal approach the refuge system has to recreation may have been created to maintain flexibility, but I believe it allows a lot of bad decisions to be made.
I would love to see –
1) Regional or national planning guidance on public use, including best management practices for activities like protecting important habitats, determining visitor “carrying capacity” for refuges, preventing invasive species and disease, and trail planning and construction. The NPS and the USFS have guidelines…why is the refuge system still flailing in the dark with this?
2) While I think it is important to be relevant to our constituents, I do not believe that the Service has to allow non-wildlife dependent recreation (like dog walking or kite flying) to make that happen. Outdoor experience, environmental education and wildlife observation are very very different than simple outdoor recreation and we need to keep that distinction in mind when planning for refuges. Frankly, we need to focus our public use “energy” on explaining why our mission is different from that of other conservation agencies and why it is important. We do not have a recreation mandate and recreation should be kept to minimal acceptable levels. It should not be the focus of our work.
3) Scientifically sound planning and monitoring activities should be established for determining (and possibly mitigating) the impacts of visitor use. We are leaders in wildlife science, but refuse (for some reason) to apply this same scientific knowledge to visitor use planning.
p.45 Increases productivity
I would like to see some sort of accountability for employees – rewarding exceptional hard work and commitment (which I think we do a good job with), but also being okay with removing or reprimanding employees that are “sliding through” – I think because most employees believe their job is “permanent”, there is just not the same incentive to do good work as there is in the private sector. There’s no competition and no real accountability. I have seen several programs suffer because of this.
First, I want to thank all those who had a hand in writing these recommendations. I’m sure it was a lot of work.
Others have mentioned that the document does not seem “bold” enough. I have to admit, it didn’t strike me as “bold” either, but then again, maybe the document is trying to be more realistic.
My general comments follow:
A. Recommendations regarding local partnerships in conserving lands around refuges or in place of new refuges
I understand the need to think bigger when it comes to local partnerships with private landowners, states, NGOs and commercial interests in order to protect larger areas of habitat due to climate change, etc. But I worry that these “voluntary” agreements are not as binding as the NWRS owning the land outright. What happens when state budget pressures start affecting these voluntary agreements or when ranchers/farmers start disagreeing with how the land around them is managed or when voluntary conservation easements dissolve? I’m all for partnerships, as long as they’re not an excuse for the FWS to avoid the political and monetary burden of buying the land outright — which is the safest way to protect it.
B. Recommendations regarding “aggressively pursuing changes to interagency fire policy”
At my refuge, we’re looking at whether or not fire is actually hurting birds and other species that live in burn areas. The blanket acceptance of the fire policy is being examined, and I think that’s a healthy approach. While the FWS is “aggressively” pursuing new burn policies, I hope they also take the time to examine whether or not some areas should not be burned like they were in the past. Tradition isn’t a reason for continued burning. Do what’s best for the habitat.
C. Recommendations to pour money and time into preserving hunting and fishing
We all know that hunting is on the decline as Americans lose the taste for killing and as young people spend less time outdoors. I can only gather that the FWS feels there is monetary and political gain (or survival) to be found by working to keep hunting alive in the United States. Unfortunately hunting brings a great deal of money to the NWRS and to state agencies — this is not a good thing in my opinion, but it’s the reality. And I know the FWS does not have a lot of friends on Capitol Hill, but having the hunting lobby on the side of the NWRS does buy it some political friends, so I gather this is also why the FWS would want to keep hunters happy and help grow the constituency.
As others have mentioned, playing to the birding/photography constituencies seems a better way to go, but I guess we’re not in a place yet where birders and photographers will bring much money or political clout to the NWRS. That’s a shame, and I hope that changes.
D. Recommendations regarding increasing website and social media offerings
I wholeheartedly agree with many of the recommendations regarding outreach, social media, websites, and branding efforts. One thing I did want to mention — the FWS websites need to be accessible just like the refuges. I’m a web developer, and the FWS websites could follow Section 508 standards of accessibility more thoroughly. I know it’s not a priority, but it should be one, especially since it’s the law.
As for branding, maybe the effort to spread the word about the NWRS would be more successful if the FWS spent less time promoting the Fish and Wildlife Service and more time promoting the Refuge System. Take the focus off the Service and put it on the land system — then more folks would know what a national park is and what a national wildlife refuge is, and why they’re different.
E. Recommendations regarding reexamining the Appropriate Use policies
I’m all for reexamining the Appropriate Use policies as long as this doesn’t dissolve into a situation where we open a refuge to ORVers because our ranching partners pressure us to do so and we want to keep them happy since they participate in a land conservation partnership with a local refuge. Providing a great variety of recreational uses is not the main goal of the Refuge System. If they want to ride their ORV, go to a national forest or BLM land.
F. Recommendations regarding promoting economic benefits of refuges
I would love for the FWS to aggressively promote the economic benefits of refuges in local communities or maybe even on the national level. I’m often frustrated with how local communities totally undervalue the benefits of refuges, and this leads to more pressure on the refuge, less community support and less political power. I think this recommendation should be pursued as a high priority, maybe along with the NWRS branding effort.
ddd
Sorry, the “ddd” in my former comment was just a test.
I believe we need a vision that is in keeping with the fiscal realities of the times. We can not always do more and greater things (I have not read the document yet, so I am making some assumptions based on experience). That approach might be inspirational, but not realistic or strategic. I think we have to plan do less with less. Severe cuts to an expanding conservation program will ulitmately waste money and destroy moral. I don’t think we can expect a “pendulum swing” in funding anymore, not of any significance for decades at least. Perhaps the FWS can set the example for other federal agencies in making cuts to programs and refocuing on our core mission, before the axe is leveled across the board. It might be good for us and good for the country.
Team, friends and colleagues,
I’d like to make some general comments here and deliver more specific comments next week.
The Draft Vision provides a promising framework for developing a medium- or long-term vision, but it needs a lot of work yet to achieve that potential.
The Draft Vision calls for “setting bold conservation goals and priorities” and refers to “the plan’s bold charge.” It says, “We must act boldly with the information we have,” and speaks proudly of “Bold and daring visionaries” in conservation history. However, few if any of the recommendations in the plan could be classified as bold. All the recommendations are good ideas, and some are highly ambitious, but which would be considered bold?
Presumably some of the recommendations could lead to bold actions in the future. For example, “Evaluate the training opportunities at the National Conservation Training Center… for the skills sets that will be needed in the future” has the potential for bold outcomes, but unless some bold recommendations are made in the Draft Vision, it will give the general impression of overstated boldness.
The Draft Vision constitutes a mostly reactive approach to the environmental and societal challenges it identifies or alludes to. A bold vision will engender an agency culture and programs conducive to stemming the tide of environmental deterioration with proactive (as well as reactive) public service for the sake of future generations. In particular, the Vision should openly address the subject of economic growth, which is not only one of the biggest challenges facing the Refuge System but also is most relevant to society. The phrase “economic growth” should be used in the Vision to a measured extent to help raise awareness of the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation (see Bold Ideas for a fuller explanation of this proposal).
The Draft Vision challenges refuge managers and other field personnel to be bold and innovative without placing enough responsibility for boldness and innovation on the Regional and Washington Offices. The Draft Vision also doesn’t reflect an adequate differentiation of the types of responsibilities and duties held at these geo-political levels.
The Draft Vision reflects a questionable awareness and concern about the capacity of the Refuge System to handle the increased demands that are encouraged in the Draft Vision. This is especially problematic in the context of supply shocks and fiscal crisis.
Naturally, I have focused on the aspects in need of improvement. The Draft Vision does provide a promising framework, though, and I look forward to submitting specific recommendations soon.
Brian Czech, Conservation Biologist
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wildlife Refuge System
I have just received the draft vision for national wildlife refuges and begun to review and prepare specific comments. My initial gut reaction upon reading this email was — Why is this needed? We already have a vision document — “Fullfilling the Promise” based on the 1997 refuge improvement act that is adequate to this need. What really needs to be done is implement the “Wildlife First” dictum of that vision and the Law on which it was based. As an employee of the national wildlife refuge system for more than a decade, the Sevice has failed to create a refuge system of lands managed on conservation science, or sincerely promoted either the Promises document or implemented it. Thereby, negating te Act and its intent. The “Fullfilling the Promises” document does not need to be replaced. The Service needs to sincerely implement it in accordance with the law that was its foundation. We are out of time – interms of trying to protect and maintain biolgical integrity and diversity on these national lands to pursue another paper excercise.
My other reaction to this new vision document is that the Service continues to rely on the support of NGOs, recreational groups, and the public lobbying congressional representatives for funds to implement the 1997 Law. Yes, we need partners to do what the guiding legislation requires.
The Departmental and Service premise that this will result in large increases in funding is I regret to say out of keeping with the federal system of legislative administration by the Executive Branch. The refuge improvement act was passed by Congress and it administered by the Executive Branch. Putting people on refuges and expecting their individual appeals to their local congress person is not likely to result in a massive funding increase for any particular refuge or the system. Get real! Nor should individual refuges cater to Congressional representatives on an annual basis via Friends Groups for funds. It is the responsibility of the Service via the Department to work with the Executive Branch for funds via the Presidential budget. The Law is the law. NWRS continues to focus on public use, not conservation of the resources it is mandated to address.
Biological programs on refuges are funded on a discretionary basis by managers. The NWRS has not seen fit to earmark adequate funding for biological program implementation on the ground. Retention of wildlife management techniques not conservation science is still the focus, often on approaches that are anachronisms in the 21st century. Even following lengthy planning to develop science based plans (CCPs, HMPs) or other documents management does and can change the document to meet manager’s interests in primarily in public use. The Service needs to build a biological program that holds a place equal in staff and funding to the public use programs.
As a rule, I have intern volunteers to work on field season projects. For the last eight years all but one of these told me this during my parting interview — Can you please get them (management) to put more emphasis on wildlife and contemporary conservation science? I’m telling you, because the managers don’t seem to care. These are people brought to refuges to gain support and possible future employees which leave with a negative view of what we do, though they believe in what we say. Will a new vision plan change this? No.
Thanks to all for the hard work and time that obviously went into this document. There are a lot of good ideas in it. Below are a few initial reactions and suggestions I have.
1. The first thing I looked for when reading the draft was a single vision statement summarizing the direction in which the Refuge System (and the rest of the document) should be heading. What I found was a different message for each chapter. While it’s important to chart a path for planning and science and recreation and organizational structure, these are all components of a single system, and I think they should all be guided by an overarching vision. I’d like to see the document begin with a vision statement that encompasses all underlying goals and objectives in the rest of the document. Jamie Clark’s recent blog includes a line that does a good job of this, and I suggest a vision that’s similarly worded: The Refuge System reaches across institutional, cultural, and generational boundaries to catalyze conservation across the landscape. Each of the following chapters can then articulate a sort of “step-down” vision.
2. I’m concerned by the call to interpret the Appropriate Use policy more flexibly, and I’d be interested to hear more from those who suggested it on what this would entail. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, and environmental education and interpretation are all priority public uses that, when compatible, refuges should continue to allow. But offering a wider range of recreational opportunities cannot be allowed to compromise the Refuge System’s responsibility to conserve wildlife and maintain the System’s integrity. I worry that a more flexible policy would leave the door open to doing just that. And with wildlife already facing threats from all sides, this hardly seems the time to take that chance.
I understand that this recommendation is motivated by a desire to bring in new visitors and that there is pressure to open refuges up to new uses, but we cannot and should not try to make the Refuge System all things to all people. If we do, I think we risk its identity. I think we can find other ways to increase visitation and connect the public to the Refuge System.
3. I think we need to start emphasizing biodiversity over trust resources. The Refuge System’s responsibility goes beyond conserving migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other “trust resources.” It also has a responsibility to conserve the range of biodiversity on its lands and in its waters. In Chapter 2, the section on Managing Refuges to Support Ecological Resilience and Climate Adaptation proposes restoring altered landscapes to support trust species. It seems incongruous to focus on a narrow list of species when the concepts of resilience and ecological integrity require us to look much more broadly. Instead, I suggest focusing on those species that best indicate and contribute to resilience and integrity.
4. I was happy to see a section on emergency preparedness, especially given last year’s Deepwater Horizon spill. However, there is also a need for emergency prevention. Spills are not uncommon on refuges, and I think the Refuge System needs to ensure that oil and gas activities on refuges are well documented and safely administered.
5. I’ve seen and heard several comments that the draft is missing something. Part of the problem for me is that the visionary language is hard to pick out, as it’s often mixed in with a lot of background and explanatory language, some of which seems extraneous or redundant. In some instances where the present tense is used, it’s unclear whether the text is an explanation of the current situation or a description of the desired future condition. In this respect, I think Chapter 3 on conservation science serves as the best model, as it is heavy on future-oriented language. Where background and explanations are needed, I suggest placing them in separate subsections from the vision. Specific examples, like those on the Blackfoot Challenge (Chapter 2) and the Prairie Wetland Learning Center (Chapter 4), could be highlighted in boxes in the final document.
It is helpful that many of the recommendations are clearly marked in the document; however, I found other recommendations that were still embedded in the regular text. These should be pulled out from the vision.
I am all about creating a better future for our planet’s animals and habitats; I think having wildlife refuges to do this is a great idea and excellent for future generations. This plan for the wildlife refuge not only can be used to help restore declining species, but also be used for education. Of course there are always going to be difficulties when trying to achieve something which is very delicate in nature; and this project has to be extremely well organized for it to have a chance to succeed. My main concern for this project is the introduction of different species into an area; reintroducing a certain species might affect the current ecosystem of that region, which could result positively or negatively. These possible outcomes would of course have to be weighed. I sometimes worry we humans can make things worse when trying to fix what we may consider a problem and I would not want a species to be reintroduced when it may cause more havoc on the present ecosystem. Other than this, the draft plan is well laid out and addresses most of my concerns. Having a plan in writing is much different than actually implementing it though, and I realize obstacles and unexpected events may ensue.
It’s interesting that in Chapter 4, the impact of a community effort can turn towards a profitable benefit. I think that’s a smart approach to marketing towards the public. Of course, there is always a wide availability of concerned volunteers but I can’t help but wonder if this cause would attract the attentions of an even larger audience if they were aware of what they could receive on their end. This chapter makes a good point that this is a cause that affects the community as a whole, regardless of racial and social differences. The conservation of wildlife species remains a matter of concern for all, because it is part of the cultural legacy that we leave to our descendants. Unfortunately, we who live in the modern world today are affected by concepts of consumerism. Whether we realize it or not, the effort we put into contributing to a worthwhile cause is usually motivated by this concept. This initiative challenges the mindset of “What’s in it for me?” because the goal strives to throw off off barriers across social groups towards a common interest. I find that it’s rare to find a cause that generally most diverse groups would agree upon so effective networking is a fresh approach. I’d like to know more regarding the networking effort and the specific ways this can be practiced. The emphasis on a collaborative work disregards the value on individualism in favor of defending our environment.
One point of order I’m rather curious about involves how the ecosystem services benefit report would be made available for wider audiences. Obviously, we have websites such as this, but other than through academic communities and the pursuit of individual interest, I don’t know if the public are aware of community ecosystem projects. I’m curious how larger audiences would be targeted. It would be interesting to see to what extent public relations are used in raising awareness. But I suppose building a strong volunteer base remains a concern due to issues surrounding management. What logistics would have to be dealt with to make present this to be most cost effective?
I have not read the document in its entirety, but I have skimmed through the chapters and looked at the recommendations. First, I think it is marvelous that through the use of modern technology, the public has been included in this step, giving light to the happenings in the environment. Second, I would like to say that after reading the recommendations, I think it is crucial to include prior recommendations so that the public can compare and contrast the two, as there could be some suggestions in the prior draft that might benefit the existing draft. In regards to the current draft, I particularly liked the idea of engaging the youth through volunteer programs I felt that it would teach the future generation the value in nature and wild life. Being a college student, who grew up in New York City, it has been very difficult for me to understand the connection with the wild life, however, I feel that this connection is necessary when trying to understand the environment. For this reason, I feel that by reaching out to high schools and colleges, you are reaching out to educate an array of people who might have wondered, but have neglected to take action. Essentially, this is an educational process that will hopefully reach those, as myself, who have paid little to no attention to the wild life. I also like the idea of the “friends” groups, because this brings people together and formulates new ideas that could benefit the future of the cause. Again, I like the ideas presented in this draft, but I would like to see the prior recommendations, because they might also have some suggestions that this draft could benefit from.
Kristine, I think what I feel is missing from the document is heart. When I read fulfilling the promise I am inspired by statements like “willdife come first” and the commitment to invest in the people dedicated to the Service mission. The documents leads with a discussion of the American character and connection to wild creatures. It goes on to say that the promise is to wildlife and the people committed to the Service and conservation. And fulfilling the promise makes more promises, including a promise to preserve wildlife and habitat for it’s own sake and the benefit of the American peoople. The thread of the document is a promise…too the values we all hold dear, the values that inspired us to become conservationists. We work hard for what we believe in and our new draft vision document needs to inspire us to keep on fighting the good fight and believing in our mission.
The new draft document feels very safe. I agree with all of those who request action. I am hopeful that with the inclusion of bold ideas will change the character of the document and will help us to define how we will accomplish those goals in a very specific and bold way. While I appreciate the efforts our folks have made to create an inspiring document, please be bolder! We look to our leaders to inspire us. Inspiration goes a long way at the end of the day.
Wildlife First is the concept that makes the refuge system unique among our land agencies;encapslated in two small words are the System’s goals and values. But those two words form a powerful statement. People nod when its said, they get it. To help ensure that wildlife comes first, the refuge system has its appropriate use and compatability standard. Wildlife First is the conservation ethic (and the related appropriate use/compatibility polices) that should be reflected in all land/water management practies…both on the refuge and beyond the refuge boundary,whether its a neighboring community or another federal, state and local land/water/wildlife agencies. To me the bold vision is that in 10 years (hopefuly before the next decade ends) the Wildlife First philosophy is a universally adopted management practice.
The document should ensure Wildife First translates into community recognition & support of connectivity of land to ensure there is space for species to survive & thrive. I wanted to know what tools FWS needs to enhance their (and others’) work to protect wildlife. Is it the strategic habitat conservation planning model or resouces like landscape conservation cooperatives? While SHC and LCCs were mentioned in the draft, their role in a long-term vision seemed muted at best. Even if its not under the name of SHC or LCCs, the document should be more specific about how to incorporate the Wildife First notion into future land & water management–whether on service lands or beyond its borders. Paint me a verbal picture – a vision – of what Widlife First looks like in conservation planning. What must we do as a socieity to protect our wildlife heritage? Then step it down and tell me what tools/resources are needed to help grow meaningful community engagement in citizen science, outdoor education oppotunities, and wildlife-dependant recreation opportunties. One recommendation is to renew a promotion of Wildlife First – it can inform why we need to protect special places including wilderness quality lands and waters, maintain biodiversity and promote resilient habitats. Promoting the Wildlife First agenda can also inform the need for a greater investment in conservation science, planning and delivery and how these management actions can promote the development/sustainability of partnerships with local landowners, other agencies and conservation groups.
Thanks to USFWS Refuge System for your work in protecting America’s wildlife and habitat; and thanks for the opportunity to comment on the draft vision document.
I am a birder, and I visit various NWRs for that purpose. I realize that the refuges were originally set up to manage timber cutting, and the use by the public to observe wildlife was secondary at that time. However, in these days of severe budget cutting to enable our country to pay down the national debt, I find it extremely frustrating to learn that the industrial uses of the NWRs are subsidized by the federal government. I could accept sustainable timber cutting if that activity was contributing revenue to the government, but it is an outrage that these resources are made available to the timber companies, cattle grazing, and mining interests, as subsidized enterprises. How can that possibly be justified, especially now in our financial crisis?
I have a few comments on the vision document:
Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, & 2.4. I applaud the recognition of working with “working lands” in our land acquisition efforts. FWS’s wetland and grassland easement programs are essential to protecting habitat on private lands surrounding fee title owned NWR’s and WPA lands. We can protect land and it still stays in private ownership; depending on the easement the landowner may still be able to hay or graze the tract. A key part of this is that the local townships still receive full property tax revenue on the protected lands b/c the private landowner is paying the property tax bill. Our PILT payment system on our fee title lands has major problems and is really hampering land protection efforts as townships and counties do not want FWS fee title owned lands in their county if we will not pay full PILT pmts. In summary, utilizing our easement tools is an effective way to protect quality habitat in working landscapes. These programs should be expanded as is being done in the Kansas Flint Hills. Our deficiencies with the PILT pmt. program should be fixed if we are to efficiently add fee title land to the landscape.
Recommendations 2.16-2.20. All these recommendations focus on “beyond the boundaries” concepts. I agree – this is critical to achieving our mission as many of the problems we see with water quality, sedimentation, etc. on our refuges arise from things that are happening on land outside our signs. I think the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program is a great way to deliver many of these recommendations on the ground. This program should be expanded and better funded. We could do far more work with more staff and on-the-ground habitat dollars, not only with USDA but on our own independent FWS private lands projects. We always have a waiting list of projects to be done on private land b/c either the staff time and/or the on-the-ground funding is limited. Partnering with USDA is critical. They have the habitat $ but few staff to push the numerous programs. Many times all that is needed is someone to provide the technical assistance to the landowner as the funds are there with USDA. Again, this is where the Partners program fits in. With more staff and funding much progress could be made on recommendations 2.16-2.20.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Adaptive Restoration: A Concept Looking for an Agency
The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) should consider embracing adaptive restoration as an agency-wide science initiative. Adaptive restoration is a concept that incorporates multiple forms of active learning into the management process. Adaptive restoration begins by identifying what needs to be known to restore a place and then restoration proceeds in stages designed to maximize learning. For example, at a local site where climate change is projected to lead to warmer winters and drier summers, different native seed mixes could be used in different parts of a field during restoration to assess over time which planting regime is most effective in restoring a diverse, native plant stand. The adaptive restoration concept has been described by Zedler in several publications and is now being tested at the Curtis Prairie in Madison, WI (Zedler and Callaway 2003, Zedler 2005, Zedler 2010; http://uwarboretum.org/research/adaptive%20restoration/ ).
“Large sites with heterogeneous microtopography and patchy resources could accommodate experimental plantings of many native species, various genotypes, assemblages that differ in species richness, and combinations that include multiple functional groups. ….Thus, adaptive restoration addresses information needs while restoring the land in phased modules, each implemented as an experiment, with findings in early modules employed in later modules, learning while doing. “ (Zedler 2010)
The concept can be extended to the landscape scale through conservation partners working together to evaluate different restoration techniques in multiple locations. In a recent paper focused on climate change effects on wetlands, Zedler (2010, pp. 545-546) calls for a national program to foster adaptive restoration.
“Establish a national program that fosters adaptive restoration: The US Farm Bill already funds conservation reserves, but efforts are not organized within watersheds (Batie 2009) or required to accommodate research. If research and restoration were integrated in downstream wetlands, large experimental plantings could be evaluated for their resilience to flooding and sedimentation. Early identification of biological factors that confer resilience to extreme events, along with an understanding of cause–effect relationships, would equip land managers with the means to “keep all the parts” intact, despite stormier climates. Additional long-term studies of a broader range of ecosystems could build on those in wetlands, and demonstrate the further utility of the adaptive approach. “ (Zedler 2010, p. 546)
How does adaptive restoration fit with the NWRS’s history and practice of land management?
The concept of adaptive restoration fits with the agency’s history of proactive management while steering a course for the future that embraces change and adaptation, essential elements for any forward-looking Vision. The NWRS has a strong history of active management, with a special focus on sustaining waterfowl and waterbird populations early in our history. With the 1997 Refuge System Improvement Act, the focus of management was broadened to include supporting the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of all of our lands. Many, if not most management actions today are focused on restoration of ecosystem function and diversity as well as fish and wildlife populations. In many cases, new lands coming into the NWRS are ecologically degraded and in need of major restoration. On existing lands, reducing the effects of invasive species through restoration is a major focus for many managers. We are also restoring hydrology to reduce the intensity of management required in the future to sustain ecosystem function. Adaptive restoration fits with the NWRS’s history of active management, but incorporates an adaptive learning process. Even in Alaska where preservation rather than restoration is the primary objective, degradation occurs through human impacts (hunting, fishing, sea level rise, roads, oil exploration, extraction, spills, etc.) and cascading ecological effects driven by rapid climate change; restoration may be an appropriate objective.
How is adaptive restoration different from adaptive management?
Adaptive management is one of the primary tools that will be needed to accomplish adaptive restoration. The NWRS and the USGS have invested heavily over the last five years in learning how to implement adaptive management on the ground (Moore et al, in press). Adaptive restoration will put that knowledge to work across the landscape. Adaptive restoration is a broader concept than adaptive management because it includes multiple forms of learning associated with the restoration process, such as focused research, experimentally designed field studies, greenhouse experiments, etc. These research tools are in use across the NWRS, often in partnership with a research organization or a university. Within the NWRS, the Land Management Research and Demonstration (LMRD) Program provides leadership in employing focused research on refuge stations.
In summary, adaptive restoration is a broad concept, based in a ‘learning by doing’ framework that is appropriate for a NWRS science initiative during a time of rapid environmental change. Adaptive restoration does not assume that we know exactly what the restoration target should be, nor what specific species will be appropriate for the site, given changing environmental conditions. In contrast, it supports letting the species tell us where the conditions are appropriate for their survival.
References
Batie S. S. 2009. Green payments and the US Farm Bill: information and policy changes. Frontiers in Ecolology and the Environment 7: 380–88.
Moore, C. T., E. V. Lonsdorf, M. G. Knutson, H. P. Laskowski, and S. K. Lor. in press. Adaptive management in the U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System: science-management partnerships for conservation delivery. Journal of Environmental Management.
Zedler J. B. and Callaway J. C. 2003. Adaptive restoration: a strategic approach for integrating research into restoration projects. In:Rapport DJ, Lasley WL, Rolston DE, et al. (Eds). Managing for healthy ecosystems. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.
Zedler, J. B. 2005. Restoring wetland plant diversity: A comparison of existing and adaptive approaches. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13:5-14.
Zedler, J. B. 2010. How frequent storms affect wetland vegetation: a preview of climate-change impacts. Frontiers in Ecolology and the Environment 8: 540–547.
The following comments related to Chapter 1.
1. The chapter should discuss that although hunters and anglers have played a key role and will continue to be long-term partners, their numbers are decreasing with time and they may not be a long-term focal client base.
2. There is a statement of wildlife observation increasing on NWRs, is there an estimate on the amount of change for the rise in the same way there are percent estimates in the amount of decrease in hunters?
3. The chapter needs to discuss the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the impact of this act on our mission. The chapter provides background on how the idea of National Wildlife Refuges was born, it summarizes numbers of refuges and general characteristics, it mentions partnerships, but it doesn’t do a great job of explaining what the National Wildlife Refuge System means at its core. The chapter says we’re dedicated to conservation of wildlife species and their habitat. It does offer the idea that we should work to foster public understanding and appreciation of the natural world through wildlife-related recreation. But, are these the core values. The core value should be stated in a way that translates through time, regardless of demographic, social, or budgetary changes. The core value should be what left behind if all else is taken away. Without a clear statement of this core value, how can a bold vision really be developed.
4. In the section, A Changing America, please provide percent values during discussion on changes in demographics through time.
Thanks to the many committee members for the time and effort they have put into this draft. There are many great recommendations! My concern is with the lack of clear priorities between competing recommendations and the paucity of information addressing how to fund and/or staff these efforts (I do support the idea of getting more organized about our volunteer and friends programs by identifying the work needs and recruiting the right people). We cannot be all things to all people in all places. As we move from Vision into action plans, we must identify what our priorities are, who will take what action where and with what objective in mind…. and also, which parts of the vision will not be a priority in some areas, e.g. if we choose to focus staff time on developing conservation projects outside the Refuge borders (which is a big picture conservation model I would love to see implemented… if we have the resources to do it) it will come at a cost of less staff time available to focus within the refuge boundary unless we obtain additional funding for parternship/landscape level conservation.
General Comments
It will be important for this document to receive a good edit by the leaders of our Refuge System. I just feel that many of the recommendations were the pet projects or peeves of the authors.
Also it will be important for the leadership of the refuge system to determine which of these recommendations they can afford given the current state of the federal budget. It is unlikely that our budgets will change substantially in the next few years. Given that climate it will be important to show those in Congress and others what great value we provide the American public. It will be important for us to determine what our core responsibilities are and to fully fund them. Secondary responsibilities will be less well funded. It is important that we use the latest technology where we can, but it should be understood that our budgets are not going to get a lot larger in the near future. At the same time we should have some recommendations for the future when our budgets do get larger and the current budget climate changes.
Specific Comments
Page 5, Last paragraph – coastal erosion has resulted from the Arctic Ocean no longer being ice covered in the summer and fall and it seems like intensifying storms has resulted from global warming and is worth mentioning.
Page 10, Third full paragraph – I like this idea, but we will need to be careful that the threats are apolitical.
Page 16, 1st recommendation – This should only be accomplished if it can be done at low cost to the refuge system and if spills hit Service lands.
Page 17, 1st recommendation – This recommendation should be preceeded with the phrase, “Using an interdisciplinary approach”. It will be important to get all pertinent areas of refuges involved with the water professionals in doing these assessments.
Page 20, Ocean and Marine Conservation – It seems that enforcement of existing fishing laws and regulations should be a priority in marine conservation.
Page 21, 2nd recommendation – I am in favor of the wilderness reviews if they can be accomplished at low cost or no cost to the System. We are going to have to live within our means for the next few years.
Page 25, 1st recommendation of Science-based Wildlife and Habitat Management – I am all in favor of science-based management, but I am not sure how you ensure that resources are sufficient for this type of management when Congress controls the agency budget. We can move in this direction, but we should not jeopardize other System priorities to achieve this.
Page 26, 2nd recommendation – There seems to already be DOI standards and the development of Service standards may not be worth the exercise.
Page 31, Welcome to Your National Wildlife Refuge – It may make sense to print refuge brochures and other information signs and documents in Spanish or other languages of the local people or the visitors common to the area.
Page 33, 4th recommendation – This should be added or a recommendation in and of itself. Ensure public transportation is avalable to urban refuges.
Page 34, 2nd recommendation – This makes sense where NWR lands are accessible by non-English speaking groups.
Page 34 – I think that the Refuge System should study to what extent culturally diverse peoples use the National Wildlife System and the reasons they do not use them more.
Page 34, Broadening Refuge Visitation and Use – The first paragraph in this section states that in the past the Appropriate Refuge Use Policy has been interpreted very conservatively. There is the implication that there is something wrong with this. The authors should remember that these lands have been set aside for wildlife and are not multiuse lands like the Forest Service or BLM manages. Also allowing more use allows development interests to access our lands as well as the general public. Also the first and third recommendations on page 35 deal with the appropriate use policy and compatibility. The authors and leaders of the Refuge System should realize that there is a very limited range of activities that we can allow on our Refuges before wildlife will be affected, but I wish them luck in their review of the policy.
Page 36, recommendations – I support these studies, but these need to be done economically.
Page 37, recommendation 1 – Some Refuges are remote and don’t have an adequate population.
Page 37, 2nd recommendation – We shouldn’t put Friends and volunteers in the same recommendation since they are vastly different programs.
Page 37, recommendation 2 – We should come up with a national theme of the year and develop materials at a national level to implement it.
Page 41, recommendation 2 – The Refuges communications strategy should be a subset of the Service strategy.
Page 41 recommendation 3 – There are limits to this strategy and I would suggest extreme caution before a partner compromises our conservation mission.
Page 43, Chapter 5, Organizational Excellence – There are several places in this chapter where there are repeats – Line 25 is repeated in the 4th full paragraph on Page 44 and this, in turn, is repeated in the third full paragraph on Page 45.
Page 44, 1st full paragraph – It makes economic sense to station some specialists at the regional level since there is not enough work to do at any one station.
Page 48, Recommendation 2 – Often the departing employee has no idea who the succeeding employee will be. It is impossible to convey the knowledge needed in this case.
The following comments are on Chapter 2.
1. On page 8, lines 2 to 4, I suggest the following edits. The discussions now turns to how the Service can continue to more effectively and efficiently build on the successful National Wildlife Refuge System model – and its impressive array of conservation tools – to deliver conservation on the ground, and if, in light of numerous changes on the landscape, that delivery will differ from the past.
2. An appendix should be added listing all of the Recommendations.
3. The term, working lands should be defined. Are large corporate acres on monoculture included as part of what is considered working lands, or just family-owned farms and ranches? Are specialty farms (i.e., sod farms) considered working lands?
4. Instead of presenting a NWRS vision, the chapter seems to focused on concepts currently under development (SHC, LCC, inclusion of working lands, etc.) instead of describing the benefits of having a strong NWRS for conserving future fish and wildlife and the ecosystems.
5. It is stated that, “… but it cannot protect all ecosystems and all species alone.” Although it seems unintended, this sentence seems to lead the reader to ask, what can refuges do and why are they important? The National Wildlife Refuge System is stated as being, Vital, and an irreplaceable element, maybe discuss what would be lost if NWRS did not exist.
6. When it is stated that, “Landscape strategy must transcend the Refuge System”, what does this mean in regards to the NWRS? What is the vision for the NWRS within Landscape Conservation? The chapter has discusses the greater landscape with NWRS serving but a small support role. Is this really the intended vision being describing?
7. I do not disagree that the Refuge LE program is very important, but having this section written so strongly and placed before all other discussions on programs suggests that this one refuge function is of most importance to the vision of NWRS. This conflicts the earlier message that Science was more important to the vision of NWRS. I find this section out of place with the rest of the chapter. Much of the same discussion could occur for administrative staff functions or those functions served by maintenance workers, but these activities are not discussed anywhere within the chapter. The section, Protecting Wildlife, should be expanded to show how our people and their roles are each important to ensure refuges are protected and function.
8. The language within the Managing Refuges to Support Ecological Resilience and Climate Adaptation would make a much better lead to the chapter.
9. The section, Working Beyond Wildlife Refuge Boundaries, should be moved closer to the front of the chapter.
10. Use of various terms referring to National Wildlife Refuges and National Wildlife Refuge System should be standardized throughout the document.
11. The specific recommendation to acquire a research vessel and team does not seem appropriate to include within a document discussing vision and should be deleted.
The following comments are on Chapter 3.
1. On page 26, line 37, recommend following change. “Without an understanding of the habitats and species found on national wildlife refuges, the capacity…”
2. The review of the chapter was both easy and difficult. It was easy because I found little with which I disagreed. But, on the other hand, it seems like there is not much of a vision presented other than doing what we should have been doing since the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. This may be good, but it could be stated clearer or explored further.
3. Although the I & M Program had its vision defined in August, 2009, this separate effort should now be more closely incorporated into the broader Visions process for the National Wildlife Refuge System to ensure the two visions do not diverge.
I provided general comments on the Draft Vision on March 10. Since then I have prepared 69 specific comments including approximately 65 suggested revisions. Below I have posted the 26 comments/suggestions pertaining to ecological economics, micro and macro.
I have received a lot of questions about my “Bold Ideas” initiative (i.e., to raise public awareness of the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation). Most of the questions pertain to why the FWS should play a role in the economic growth issue, how we might do so, and what the risks might be. Taken together, the comments below go a long way toward answering those questions.
__________________________________
Pages 3-4, lines 46 and 1-2, respectively. “According to the last estimate in 2004, national wildlife refuges generated nearly $1.7 billion in economic activity and created 27,000 private sector jobs.”
I suggest rewording the sentence as follows: “According to the last estimate in 2004, consumers spent nearly $1.7 billion to enjoy national wildlife refuges, providing income to local communities and helping to support 27,000 private sector jobs.”
Explanation: It is technically unsound and sends the wrong message to refer to national wildlife refuges as “generating” income. What generates income to visit a refuge is economic activity at the trophic base of the economy – on the farm, in the forest, in the fishery – that gives everyone else their food, as well as materials for clothing and shelter. Everyone else is then free to work in the manufacturing or service sectors. With plenty of surplus, the economy can even support wildlife biologists and an ecotourism industry (Czech 2008).
The more our farmers, loggers, and fishermen produce, the more money we’ll all have for ecotourism and wildlife management, among other things. But of course the more we ask them to produce, the more environmental impact we’ll have. It’s a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is why it sends the wrong message to encourage the “generating” of income, much less to claim that spending money on refuges is what “generates” the income.
__________________________________
Page 5, lines 16-18. “In developing the National Wildlife Refuge System’s strategic direction for the next decade, the Service and the public it serves must understand where America has been and where it is going — demographically, socially, and economically.”
This sentence appears in the section called “A Changing America,” and seemingly does introduce the major themes of change to be dealt with. However, while American demographic and social trends are indeed summarized in this section, the word economy (or any word with the syllables “econ”) does not appear again in the section. This will leave readers wondering, “Why does the Refuge System talk about the need to understand where America is going economically, and then not mention anything about it?” The most logical and convenient place to include some information on economic trends is after or along with the paragraphs on demographic trends.
I suggest rewording the paragraph at the bottom of page 5 as follows: “Demographic shifts are intersecting with other major trends. Among the most profound are population growth, economic growth, and climate change. Population and per capita consumption determine the size of the economy, and most nations are still actively pursuing economic growth. In a global economy that is 90% fossil-fueled, greenhouse gases are emitted as a function of economic growth (IPCC 2000). In addition to climate effects, growing populations and economies displace wildlife habitats.”
In the past, some wildlife professionals have been averse to note the impacts of economic growth on wildlife conservation. However, the final two sentences in the section on a changing America are, “The Service needs to stand ready to meet opportunities with appropriate and immediate action, renewed focus, flexibility, and creative initiatives that are responsive to change. The Service must be prepared to learn new strategies, exchange models and insights, and effectively manage the Refuge System for a rapidly changing America.” Drawing the connection from macroeconomic trends to wildlife conservation should be part of this renewed focus and flexibility. We need to raise awareness of the connection as part of the creative initiatives and new strategies called for in the Draft Vision.
__________________________________
Page 7, lines 15-16. “Such trade-offs in conservation are nothing new, of course, but are likely to become ever more urgent in the coming years.”
This sentence provides additional rationale for addressing the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation. Trade-offs between wildlife conservation and other societal goals are not surprising, but some are kept from open view, and part of our job should be to help clarify such trade-offs when necessary. This is necessary in the case of economic growth because many Americans have been led to believe that there is no trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation, even though wildlife conservation is an “opportunity cost” of economic growth and vice versa. Many of these same Americans see conflicts between growth and conservation on the ground, but are led to believe that such conflicts may somehow be reconciled with technological progress, an increasingly services-oriented economy, or some form of “green growth.” The notion of reconciling economic growth with wildlife conservation has been found scientifically unsound (The Wildlife Society 2003), but it is politically convenient and persuasive to a public that prefers not to incur opportunity costs.
__________________________________
Page 8, lines 14-19. “Conservation delivery is not a new concept, but the job has grown in complexity because of unprecedented habitat fragmentation, invasive species, climate change impacts, and other stressors. Conservation professionals must contend with the endless variability and interdependence of ecological systems, and work to achieve positive conservation outcomes with information that will always be incomplete. Conservation professionals will require skill, adaptability and the capacity for innovation to meet such threats.”
This paragraph is a good example of a reactive (as opposed to proactive) approach. No one plans to commit “habitat fragmentation, invasive species, or climate change.” Rather, these are unintended side-effects of other activities, and naturally our response is primarily reactive. These and almost all other major stressors are clear outcomes or functions of increasing human population and per capita consumption; i.e., economic growth (IPCC 2000, Czech et al. 2000, Ericson 2005, Miller-Reed and Czech 2005, Rose 2005).
Meanwhile, the rate of economic growth is a policy goal open for proactive discussion at all times (Collins 2000). While no one plans to commit habitat fragmentation, plenty of planning for economic growth has transpired (and continues). At every step of the way, such planning could have been informed by concerns about wildlife conservation, environmental protection at large, and other opportunity costs of growth, if only the affected parties had been bold enough to raise such concerns among the public and policy makers.
Yet the Draft Vision says nothing about economic growth while repeating the conventional lists of growth symptoms at numerous points in the document. Noting the “unprecedented” nature of these symptoms seems like an affected and unnecessarily dramatic attempt to add an element of newness to the list. The unprecedented nature of the symptoms simply reflects the unprecedented levels of production and consumption occurring in the American and global economies. We would not have been caught off guard by the level of these threats, had we been heeding the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation.
The paragraph also provides an excellent example of how the phrase “economic growth” can be easily and appropriately included among a list of broad threats to the Refuge System, in order to help raise awareness of the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation. This alone would be conducive to achieving “positive” or proactive conservation outcomes by demonstrating “adaptability and the capacity for innovation” in dealing with threats.
I suggest rewording the paragraph as follows: “Conservation delivery is not a new concept, but the job has grown in complexity because of ongoing economic growth (including population and per capita consumption growth), habitat fragmentation, invasive species, climate change, and other stressors. Conservation professionals must contend with the endless variability and interdependence of ecological and economic systems, and work to achieve positive conservation outcomes with information that will always be incomplete. Conservation professionals will require skill, adaptability and the capacity for innovation to meet such threats proactively and reactively. They will be challenged to address causal mechanisms (such as economic growth) as well as distal effects (such as habitat fragmentation).”
__________________________________
Page 9, lines 35-37 (again). “But future land protection planning is hampered by the lack of an integrated strategy for accomplishing the varying missions of the land management agencies.”
It is also the case that future land protection planning is hampered by the lack of a strategy for coordinating with other (non-land management) agencies. In particular, we have no coordination with the departments and agencies that are intent upon growing the economy or carrying out growth programs. For example (and there are very many examples), the Department of Commerce has agencies and programs designed to stimulate economic growth in certain regions of the country (and in the country in general). We should be coordinating with these programs to share our concerns and obviate conflicts. Opening this dialog also gives us a chance to raise awareness of the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation. It is easily conceivable that we could have greater conservation effect by coordinating with these agencies and programs than we do by over-emphasizing coordination with other land management agencies.
I suggest rewording as follows: “But future land protection planning is hampered by the lack of an integrated strategy for accomplishing the varying missions of government agencies. These include land management agencies that we already work with and other agencies that have direct effects on the American landscape. These include economic growth and development agencies in the U.S. Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, and Department of Energy (and their state counterparts).”
__________________________________
Page 10, lines 36-38. “By 2050, the U.S. population is expected to reach nearly 400 million, each of who require water, housing, roads, stores, and huge tracts of land to grow food and to recreate.”
This is another good example of a sentence with which it is easy to contribute to awareness of the challenge posed by economic growth. The economic aspect is important too, because more American wildlife habitat is lost to growth in per capita consumption than to growth in population (Czech 2000). Furthermore, the sentence as written is likely to leave readers feeling powerless and resigned, because there is no policy arena for population issues. If the connection is made to macroeconomic trends, readers will correctly have some realistic hope that economic policy and consumer decision-making could be used to stem the tide of habitat loss. (Also, one of the primary reasons population growth remains unaddressed in the policy arena is because it is considered integral to economic growth, which has been an unchallenged goal. This nuance pertaining to growth politics and policy may not be within the purview of a final vision document, but it is good for us to be aware of.)
I suggest rewording as follows: “By 2050, the American population is expected to reach nearly 400 million and the American economy nearly $40 trillion. Supporting the additional economic activity would require approximately 200% more (all else equal) land and natural resources than the current GDP of $13 trillion. Even supporting the population growth alone, with no growth in GDP per capita, would require approximately 30% more land and natural resources (all else equal) than the current population of 307 million.”
__________________________________
Page 13, lines 25-28. “The policy also tells managers of wildlife refuges to address threats and stressors that originate from beyond their boundaries. Explicitly recognized in the policy is the reality that many wildlife refuges are islands in highly fragmented landscapes…”
This too adds to the rationale for dealing deliberately and clearly with the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation. It is worth asking ourselves why a national wildlife “refuge” is called such. Why is a refuge an “island” and what is it a “refuge” from? Essentially a refuge is an island in a sea of economic activity. The “threats and stressors” resemble a list of economic sectors, infrastructure, byproducts, and incidental effects (Czech et al. 2000). As noted in the Draft Vision, these threats and stressors “originate from beyond” refuge boundaries. What is often overlooked is that a significant share of the “origination” includes fiscal and monetary policies developed in statehouses, federal agencies, and monetary authorities.
This does not mean the vision document should describe all the fiscal and monetary policies that result in intensified economic activity and therefore threats and stressors to wildlife and refuges. Rather, the vision document should help demonstrate that there is a trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation, and should contribute to Refuge System efforts, moving forward, to raise awareness of the trade-off. To the extent such awareness grows, policy makers will consider this trade-off when they develop fiscal and monetary (and trade) policy. Conversely, to the extent that economic policy makers do not consider this trade-off, the conservation movement has failed.
__________________________________
Page 17, lines 43-46. “The era is over when the Refuge System could focus only on protecting land and water inside refuge boundaries, and leave to a roll of the dice what happened outside the boundaries. The emerging model focuses on conserving entire landscapes and connecting the stewardship of those landscapes to the livability and sustainability of local communities.”
Addressing what happens “outside the boundaries,” “conserving entire landscapes,” and “sustainability of local communities” will seem like wispy notions without plain, explicit language about economic growth.
I suggest building upon the statement as follows: “These landscape and community objectives will not be attainable in the face of perpetual economic growth, however, so the emerging model engages the Refuge System in discussions of economic growth with local, state, and national economic interests, economic planners and, when appropriate, economic policy makers.”
__________________________________
Page 20, lines 2-4. “Recommendation: Develop a comprehensive communications and outreach strategy regarding Refuge System’s coastal and ocean areas management paradigm to help land managers understand its place within the suite of options for conservation.”
Among ecologists and conservationists, those who deal with marine issues tend especially to recognize the ecological impacts of economic growth. This stems from the fact that the oceans are downstream from the rest of the planet, so that the waste products from the global economy tend to concentrate in the oceans. This then is a segment of the Draft Vision that especially calls for raising awareness of the issue.
I suggest revising the recommendation as follows: Develop a comprehensive communications and outreach strategy…to help land managers understand its place within the conservation community and to help the public and policy makers understand the trade-off between economic growth and marine conservation.”
__________________________________
Page 21, lines 34-36. “In the face of such environmental stresses as climate change and a burgeoning worldwide population, effective communication of successful wildlife conservation across international boundaries is imperative.”
Effective communication is imperative, and not only of “successful wildlife conservation.” This sentence is clearly yet another instance where the lack of economic connection is glaring. Fortunately, this is easily remedied.
I suggest revising the recommendation as follows: “In the face of such environmental stresses as a burgeoning global population, an even more rapidly growing economy, and numerous resulting impacts including habitat loss, pollution, and climate change, effective communication for addressing these stressors across international boundaries is imperative.”
__________________________________
Page 24, lines 27-29. “The threats to fish and wildlife posed by climate change, invasive species, habitat loss and fragmentation, energy development and extraction, contaminants and alterations in ecological processes are making the future as challenging as any faced in Refuge System history.”
Here is another instance in the Draft Vision where it would be easy, relevant, and helpful to raise awareness of the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation. In this case, yet another phrase is introduced – “energy development and extraction” – that makes “economic growth” glaring in its absence.
I suggest revising as follows: “The threats to fish and wildlife posed by economic growth, habitat loss and fragmentation, energy development and extraction, contaminants, climate change, invasive species, and alterations in ecological processes are making the future as challenging as any faced in Refuge System history.”
__________________________________
Page 36, lines 1-32. This portion of the Draft Vision is focused on the values of ecosystem services on the Refuge System and the calculation of those values. As a long-time proponent (and instructor) of ecological economics, I concur with a careful application thereof. However, the ecological microeconomics promoted here seems a bit ironic and out of place in a section called “A Sense of Place, a Sense of Community.” In broader circles of ecological economics and sustainable development, monetizing natural capital and ecosystem services tends to be viewed as somewhat antithetical to a sense of place and community. It almost seems that the authors found it challenging (as indeed it may have been) to provide enough material on “sense of place” and “sense of community” and therefore lumped ecological microeconomics into the section.
I suggest that, if the material on ecological microeconomics (i.e., methods and findings pertaining to the value of natural capital and ecosystem services) is to be retained in the Draft Vision, it be provided in a separate section.
There is also a broader concern about estimating the economic value of natural capital and ecosystem services; i.e., what we do with the estimates once we have them. This has been the subject of much controversy in the ecological economics community and in international diplomacy. For example, on November 15, 2010, five nations issued a complaint about a UN initiative called the “Global Green New Deal.” These nations claim that “nature is seen [by the UN] as ‘capital’ for producing tradable environmental goods and services.” They express their concern about the “privatization and the mercantilization of nature through the development of markets for environmental services.” They also declare their “condemnation of unsustainable models of economic growth.” Their complaint illuminates widespread and growing concern about the implications of valuing ecosystem services.
The good news from the Green New Deal is that ecological microeconomics has risen from academia into international diplomacy. This helps to raise awareness of the value of natural capital and ecosystem services. However, microeconomics does little to advance the key findings from ecological macroeconomics, including limits to growth and the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation. We should do better than the Green New Deal and use both aspects of ecological economics – micro and macro – in our outreach efforts. Using ecological microeconomics exclusively could backfire.
As wildlife biologists, we recognize limits to growth and the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation (The Wildlife Society 2003). The economic pie can only get so big even if all the pieces are correctly priced, including ecosystem services. In order to protect the environment, and to help allocate resources in the most efficient manner, it helps to recognize the economic value of ecosystem services. So we practice ecological microeconomics.
Outside of the natural resources professions and ecological economics, limits to growth are often seen as nonexistent or too far off to worry about. Meanwhile, almost all good economists (micro or macro) like the idea of valuing ecosystem services; that’s the nature of economics. As long as the prices are right, and markets are established, goods and services can be allocated efficiently. (Textbooks use the example of guns and butter.)
This reckoning with broader society and neoclassical economics is where we start to encounter the perils. We are on board with valuing ecosystem services, but are we on board with marketing them? Which ones and to what degree? How would marketing these services help us protect the economy of nature (biodiversity) from an expanding human economy? Will we be able to withstand market forces or the pressures to market ecosystem services?
The two most common concerns about valuing ecosystem services are: 1) Many ecosystem services are beyond the ability of humans to estimate the value of, much less to “price” for the market. 2) The valuing of ecosystem services tends to call for a market, then monetization of the services such that they are viewed as commodities to be traded. This officially offends five nations, so far. For many Americans, too, this offends the senses of dignity and harmony with the natural world. This is something we of all agencies have to be careful of.
There is a third and bigger problem; namely, our inattention to where the money comes from to pay for services such as water filtration, carbon sequestration, pollination, etc. We should avoid engendering an attitude that, if we just throw enough money at a problem, we’ll solve it. But that is the attitude we could help to foster if our ecological microeconomics are not complemented with a healthy dose of ecological macroeconomics.
As ecologists (economists of nature), we especially need to raise more awareness of how money is generated, or at least be careful not to misinform readers thereon. The amount of money available for the purchasing of guns, butter, birdwatching or carbon sequestration is generated from the agricultural and extractive surplus that frees the hands for the division of labor. This has been known since the classical economists such as Adam Smith and even their predecessors such as Francois Quesnay and the physiocrats (Czech 2000).
One of the most famous cases of valuing ecosystem services and investing in natural capital is in New York, where New York City purchased land and development rights in the Catskill Mountains to retain a clean water supply. City planners found this approach to be more economical than the alternative of constructing a large sewage treatment plant. This example should resonate with us because the conservation lands in the Catskills are something of a de facto wildlife refuge. But this is no example of reconciling the tradeoff between economic growth and environmental protection. The protected watershed is not going to be used for hog farms or high-rises. Instead, by “investing” in the natural capital of the Catskills a decision was made to keep the land relatively free from intensive economic activity, free from “generating” money to spend on ecotourism or anything else. It’s not the kind of investment conducive to economic growth, but rather to balancing the human economy with the economy of nature.
We should practice some ecological microeconomics, but only if we complement these efforts with ecological macroeconomics. To accomplish the mission of the Refuge System and FWS, we will have to provide leadership in raising public awareness not only of the value of natural capital and ecosystem services, but of the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation. Otherwise the temptation will grow, among the public and policy makers, to capitalize on the value of Refuge System natural capital and ecosystem services by getting them into markets where they will contribute to GDP growth. Meanwhile the money to purchase them will come from the liquidation of natural capital elsewhere.
Next I provide a few specific recommendations pertaining to this portion of the Draft Vision.
__________________________________
Page 36, lines 1-2. “The economic benefits of wildlife refuges are undeniable. As an example, recreational use on wildlife refuges generated almost $1.7 billion in total economic activity in 2006.”
As noted earlier, it is technically unsound and sends the wrong message to refer to national wildlife refuges as “generating” income. What generates the income is agricultural and extractive surplus (which frees labor and capital to manufacture goods and perform services). Generating income to spend on refuge visitation comes at the expense of wildlife habitats elsewhere, which is not something it behooves the Refuge System to encourage. See comments pertaining to page 3, line 46 for more detail. (Note also that page 3 of the Draft Vision refers to “the last estimate in 2004” while page 36 incongruently refers to 2006 data.)
I suggest rewording the sentence as follows: “Wildlife refuges are valuable public treasures. Although the values encompass far more than what transpires in the market, visitors spent almost $1.7 billion on refuge visitation and related expenditures, benefiting local economies in the process. ”
__________________________________
Page 36, lines 10-13. “Recommendation: The Refuge System should continue studies and publish and share results on the economic benefits of wildlife refuges to communities, the economic benefits of ecosystem services from wildlife refuges, and the beneficial effect they have on property values.”
This recommendation is representative of the overall shortcoming, noted above, that the Draft Vision promotes the use of ecological microeconomics without concurrently promoting the use of ecological macroeconomics, with all the perils also noted above.
I suggest providing an additional recommendation as follows: “Recommendation: The Refuge System should help raise awareness of the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation, placing the microeconomic findings (such as the value of ecosystem services) in broader and policy-relevant macroeconomic perspective.”
__________________________________
Page 38, lines 19-24. “The Refuge System’s list of Guiding Principles – core values that are ever relevant – start with the most central: “We are land stewards, guided by the teachings of Aldo Leopold that land is a community of life and that love of land is an extension of ethics. We seek to instill the land ethic in our communities.”
I have no suggestion to offer here, but an observation that is relevant to the ongoing recommendation to help raise awareness of the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation. As an alumnus of the University of Wisconsin – Madison and an acquaintance of numerous past students, colleagues (some deceased), and biographers, I have little doubt that Leopold would be in the forefront of raising awareness of the trade-off, were he alive today. It may not be quotable material for the Refuge System vision, but Draft Vision authors should note the second-from-last sentence Leopold wrote for publication (in his preface to Sand County Almanac), “Nothing could be more salutary at this stage than a little healthy contempt for a plethora of material blessings.” Leopold was criticizing per capita consumption, at 1940’s levels!
__________________________________
Pages 39-40, lines 44-45 and 1-2. “Communicating the core values of a land ethic and sustainability is a worthy endeavor for the Service. It is much more important that the public sees these core values in the Refuge System’s land management and visitor opportunities. Leading by example has more power to change personal behavior than the communication of ideas alone.”
There is something vaguely yet palpably contradictory about this paragraph. It concludes a section, “School Partnerships and the Future of Environmental Education,” that is entirely about the importance of education and communicating values and information. To conclude the section with the inconclusive claim that leading by example “has more power to change personal behavior than the communication of ideas” is puzzling, especially when there is no follow-up vision for leading by example.
The paragraph also gives the impression of leaving the “heavy lifting” to Leopold, who was not satisfied with leading by example alone, but rather explicated openly with the spoken and written word controversial topics such as per capita consumption with lines such as, “Nothing could be more salutary at this stage than a little healthy contempt for a plethora of material blessings.” In other words, if we fail to communicate the “heavy” or politically challenging messages (such as the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation), then yes, leading by example would accomplish more than the “light” messaging we have left ourselves to conduct. On the other hand, if we communicate clearly on the key issues, as Leopold did, then our words will be far more effective.
I suggest eliminating or revising Pages 39-40, lines 44-45 and 1-2.
__________________________________
Page 41, lines 11-14. “Communicating the value of the National Wildlife Refuge System to an internal audience of Service employees and an external audience of Refuge Friends and other, targeted audiences is central to expanding a zone of influence on behalf of wildlife conservation.”
Surely everyone will agree with this. The tricky part is how to communicate the value without concurrently enticing individuals and firms to capitalize on that value in the market. Again, a macroeconomic perspective is required to work through this subtlety, to help develop a vision that illuminates the immense value of the Refuge System and concurrently encourages the public and policy makers to “invest” in that value by conserving it, similar to leaving money in the bank instead of spending it in the market.
I suggest revising as follows: “Communicating the value of the National Wildlife Refuge System – while emphasizing the need to conserve rather than capitalize natural capital stocks and ecosystem funds – is central to expanding a zone of influence on behalf of wildlife conservation.”
__________________________________
Page 41, lines 32-37. “Stories told about wildlife have engaged mankind for generations. The stories centered around families of wildlife seen on television may seem ridiculous when viewed through a scientific lens, but they have done a lot for instilling conservation ideals in children and families – they have engaged the heart. Engaging the public demands that conservation professionals stretch themselves, be creative, and talk about and teach conservation in a manner that compels the American public to care about wildlife.”
Dramatic and engaging tales about wildlife and conservation history will continue to be helpful and entertaining, but not helpful enough in the context of 21st century challenges to wildlife conservation and ecological integrity. The “creativity” called for in line 36 should also apply to the subject matter that is communicated. As the Draft Vision points out in line 26, “any strategy will only be as effective as its content.”
I suggest building upon the language as follows: “Stories told about wildlife have engaged mankind… Engaging the public demands that conservation professionals stretch themselves to be expressive and to deliver messages that are most relevant to 21st century conservation challenges. They should teach conservation in a manner that compels the American public to care about wildlife, and in a manner that informs the public about the systemic and policy-relevant challenges to conservation such as economic growth, pollution, and climate change.”
With the addition of the above language, the Draft Vision would do more justice to page 42, lines 1-4: “The American public too often discounts wildlife conservation threats as being too far away, not relevant to their everyday lives and even temporal. The finest minds, the strongest partnerships and the greatest innovation must be brought to the task of increasing society’s conservation literacy to fulfill the agency’s mission ‘for the continuing benefit of the American people.’”
__________________________________
Page 43, lines 40-45. “Organizational excellence begins with leaders who embrace change and innovative ideas. Service leadership at all levels must anticipate opportunities, remain transparent, and take calculated risks. The Service must be flexible and adaptive. Changing times call for a critical review of business management practices and operating procedures, as well as organizational structure.”
The first three sentences are some of the most inspiring in the Draft Vision, although the fourth sentence detracts somewhat from the inspiration. Please note that the first three sentences seem tailor-fit for addressing thorny but crucial issues such as the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation. Some in the wildlife profession have opined that addressing the issue of economic growth is too risky. However, effective wildlife conservation at this point in history clearly entails some risk, as noted in the Draft Vision, and certainly entails addressing the root causes of wildlife and habitat loss. Also, on the particular issue of economic growth, the risks have probably been over-estimated because economic growth is a classic example of a “diffused benefits, diffused costs” issue in which the communication of ideas is not likely to motivate counter-reaction because the “costs” of the ideas are diffused throughout the polity. This is in contrast to a diffused benefits/concentrated costs issue whereby a powerful entity may be motivated to counter-react to a conservation decision (such as designating critical habitat or wilderness) because the costs are incurred directly and significantly upon the entity. This basic principle of political science has long been overlooked as Refuge System personnel have considered our role in the economic growth issue.
I suggest revising the last sentence (lines 44-45) as follows: “Changing times call for a critical review of the issues to be prioritized as well as management practices, operating procedures, and organizational structure. Certain issues that were avoided in the past may have to be addressed for long-lasting conservation delivery, especially issues pertaining to the root causes of habitat and biodiversity loss.”
__________________________________
Page 44, lines 28-41. “Organizations are increasingly part of larger networks that share missions, purposes, and even responsibilities. The field of networked governance looks to the interconnectedness of essentially separate entities and looks at how relationships and connections between them affect the overall network or system. The Refuge System should adopt communication tools that facilitate the exchange of experience, knowledge, and ideas among Service staff, and with practitioners and specialists from other areas and organizations. At present, such “communities of practice” are too often isolated from each other by regional or administrative barriers, or “stovepipes.” These barriers must be broken down. Sharing knowledge is a fundamental strategy for adapting during periods of rapid change. It promotes the transfer of hard-won experience and knowledge from an experienced workforce to a new generation of Service employees, and allows staff to learn how practitioners in other areas have dealt with similar issues. Part of this is working across the organizational boundaries of federal agencies by establishing positive working relationships and partnerships.”
This is excellent and it certainly provides support for engaging with individuals and organizations that have significant effects on the socioeconomic trends that profoundly affect wildlife. A good example of breaking down barriers and sharing knowledge would be meeting with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Council of Economic Advisors, and Department of Commerce to discuss the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation. Our leadership on this subject could have the effect of these influential entities further exploring the concept of growth beyond the optimum, or “uneconomic growth.” To any degree such awareness is raised, there is the prospect for leveraging outreach on the trade-off and for policy guidance that, while not designed to halt economic growth, would tend to be less aggressively growth-oriented.
__________________________________
Page 46, lines 40-44. “The Service needs to ensure that its employees possess the right competencies to address the conservation challenges for the next decade within this landscape of change in the Refuge System. Threats from climate change, declining water quantity/quality and invasive species will require a new and stronger suite of skills, including, for example: …”
This is yet another example where “economic growth” is glaring in its absence. It should be added to the list of threats, and should probably occur first on the list as it is the most causal (as well as the most policy-relevant) of the threats. Also, a bullet pertaining to ecological economics should be added on page 47 among the examples of the “new and stronger suite of skills.”
I suggest revising as follows: “The Service needs to ensure that its employees possess the right competencies to address the conservation challenges for the next decade within this landscape of change. With the momentum of economic growth and related effects such as habitat loss, climate change, declining water quantity/quality, pollution, and invasive species, a new and stronger suite of skills is required, including for example:
• [perhaps as the third bullet] Expertise in ecological economics – macro and micro – so that Refuge System personnel may better understand the public and private economic forces affecting the “economy of nature” on the Refuge System and beyond its boundaries.
__________________________________
Page 49, lines 26-27. “For new construction and operations, the Refuge System must aim higher in its commitment to environmental sustainability. The Refuge System should…”
Sustainability is a macroeconomic issue (Dresner 2002, Daly and Farley 2010). The portion of the Draft Vision quoted above is another example where technological efforts must be supplemented with ecological macroeconomics to truly address the issue of sustainability. In fact, ecological macroeconomics should basically set the stage for the technological reforms. This offers the added benefit of delivering a basic message about limits to growth. Fortunately, we also have the recent work of the GSA to help us in this regard.
I suggest revising as follows: “For new construction and operations, the Refuge System must aim higher in its commitment to environmental sustainability. As the GSA (2009:34) described, “Government operations must be based on real-world limitations, measuring progress against a desired, sustainable steady state. To lead by example, the Refuge System must strive to achieve a sustainable, steady state of material and energy throughput in its operations (with allowances for additional refuges). To that end, the Refuge System should…” (followed by the bulleted items on page 49).
__________________________________
Page 53, lines 35-37. “…the Refuge System of the 21st century must find ways to manage environmental challenges such as climate change, invasive species, biotechnology and water quality and quantity, to name a few.”
Here we are talking about the sweep of a whole century, and as such this is another clear example where “economic growth” is glaring in its absence. It should be added to the list of challenges, and probably first on the list as it is the most causal of the threats.
I suggest revising as follows: “…the Refuge System of the 21st century must find ways to manage environmental challenges such as a growing global economy (including population growth and growth in per capita consumption), climate change, pollution, invasive species, and biotechnology.”
__________________________________
Page 54, lines 22-25. “Organizational excellence and leadership are inextricably linked. The latter begins with leaders who embrace change and new ideas, anticipate opportunities, remain transparent and take calculated risks in a way that efficiently achieves the mission while evolving towards new challenges and opportunities.”
This is encouraging language that would tend to evoke a bold vision. However, there really is little if any substance in the Draft Vision whereby calculated risks are taken to identify or endorse truly new ideas or new initiatives. There are issues other than economic growth that would qualify, but the primary overall suggestion in this review has been to add content to the Draft Vision that would help raise awareness of the trade-off between economic growth and wildlife conservation, and/or to conduce the raising of such awareness going forward. That would make the vision appear to “walk the talk.” Raising awareness of the trade-off is a new initiative – something the Refuge System has not addressed or even investigated in any systematic manner – and is certainly crucial for “conserving the future.” It also entails some calculated risk, calculated at least to the extent that heavy risk is obviated by the diffused cost/diffused benefit characteristics of the growth issue (as described on page 27 above) and by the fact that the initiative has a great deal of support from a wide variety of friends, partners, organizations, and citizens in general.
__________________________________
Page 56, lines 32-38. “With a diverse and committed workforce, the organization will be able to capture the diversity of thought and perspectives that may be uniquely presented by different cultures, experiences, and backgrounds – better positioning the organization to embrace all cultures in its mission and ensure that it remains relevant to the public. The Service must work together with the state and federal agencies and organizations that share a conservation mission to create this professional culture and to implement successful recruiting efforts that will ensure the collective conservation workforce represents Americans from all walks of life.”
This paragraph contains a bit of self-contradiction that is easily remedied. It calls on one hand for a “diversity of thought and perspectives that may be uniquely presented by different cultures, experiences, and backgrounds” yet limits the Service to working “together with the state and federal agencies and organizations that share a conservation mission.” The conservation mission is one “stovepipe” that we are challenged to get out of because (among other things) we must be successful in raising awareness of the opportunity costs of economic growth in venues where leaders from “non-”conservation, growth-oriented agencies are apprised.
I suggest revising as follows: “…The Service must work together with the state and federal agencies and organizations that have significant effects – positive or not – on wildlife conservation. The Service must establish a diverse professional culture and contribute to recruiting efforts that will ensure the collective conservation workforce represents Americans from all walks of life.”
__________________________________
Page 57, lines 12-13. “Leaders in the future will look at change as an opportunity rather than a threat.”
This is a hopeful claim. I for one do believe that leaders in the future, at least, will address the economic growth issue with courage and effectiveness. For the sake of conserving the future, we can hope that such change (i.e., explicitly and effectively dealing with economic growth) becomes viewed as an opportunity sooner rather than later.
__________________________________
Literature Cited
Collins, R. M. 2000. More: the politics of economic growth in postwar America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K. 299pp.
¬¬Czech, B. 2000. Shoveling fuel for a runaway train. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 206pp.
Czech, B. 2005b. Urbanization as a threat to biodiversity: trophic theory, economic geography, and implications for conservation land acquisition. Pages 8-13 in D. N. Bengston, ed. Policies for Managing Urban Growth and Landscape Change: A Key to Conservation in the 21st Century. General Technical Report NC-265. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Czech, B. 2008. Prospects for reconciling the conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation with technological progress. Conservation Biology 22(6):1389-1398.
Daly, H. E., and J. Farley. 2010. Ecological economics: principles and applications. Island Press, Washington, DC. 544pp.
Ericson, J. A. 2005. The economic roots of aquatic species invasions. Fisheries 30(5):30-33.
GSA. 2009. The new sustainable frontier: principles of sustainable development. General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Washington, DC. 40pp.
IPCC. 2000. Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 612pp.
Miller Reed, K., and B. Czech. 2005. Causes of fish endangerment in the United States, or the structure of the American economy. Fisheries 30(7):36-38.
Rose, A. 2005. Economic growth as a threat to fish conservation in Canada. Fisheries 30(8):36-38.
The Wildlife Society. 2003. The relationship of economic growth to wildlife conservation. Technical Review 03-1, The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 27pp.
I have concerns about the recommendation on page 33, lines 39 and 40 that reads as follows:
39 Recommendation: The Service should consider establishing national wildlife refuges in
40 urban areas if the land is valuable for wildlife.
Urban land is almost always more expensive per acre than land in a more rural setting. I understand the desire to reach a more urban audience. However, I believe the money could be better spent to either create or expand refuges that can provide valuable habitat for years to come. If The Service does decide to place refuges in urban areas, I believe plans should be made for what happens when the refuge becomes surrounded by urban sprawl. Proper planning should answer how the area will continue to provide meaningful habitat. Thank you for your time and consideration. I wish The Service well for years to come.
In Response to Mark Vaughn’s comments about the make up of the core teams being “higher ups,”……..
I am a GS 7 park ranger…not a Deputy or Chief or Program Manager….I am not a ”higher level” person.
Yet I am so much more than my title, my GS level, my location on the org chart….we ALL are.
If I was a GS 9 or 11 or 13…. I would be no different, my work would be the same.
Being on a core team is only one way of many to participate in this process….we are all in this together.
Let’s not waste precious time squabbling about who’s doing what….let’s just define what we need to do, create a strategy to do it,
and then do it….the wilderness is waiting for us.
In response to Mark Vaughn on most of the core team members being “higher ups,”
I am a core team member and I am a GS 7 park ranger…not a Deputy or Chief or Program Manager….
I am not a ”higher level” person.
Yet I am so much more than my title, my GS level, my location on the org chart….we ALL are.
If I was a GS 9 or 11 or 13…. I would be no different, my work would be the same.
Being on a core team is only one way of many to participate in this process….we are all in this together.
Let’s not waste precious time squabbling about who’s doing what job.
Let’s just define what we need to do, create a strategy to do it, and then do it….the wilderness is waiting,
and the American people are waiting too.
Woops….sorry folks, it posted two times……need more green tea, it’s that afternoon lull….
Today is the first time I’ve read through all the comments on the Draft document. After doing so, I felt compelled to comment here about how heartening it is to see that so many people care about improving the Refuge System. It kind of rejuvenated my drive to continue actively participating in this process. I agree with many authors that there are many substantive improvements that need to be made. And although there’s only a few months left, I’m confident we’ll get there.
END; hunting, welfare cattle/sheep grazing / farming/and to stop murdering our wildlife on refuges/public lands/wilderness. I am also concerned about their partnerships they are talking about having with state FISH/GAME/WILDLIFE SERVICES, as here in Ca our STATE FISH/GAME/WILDLIFE SERVICES can not hunt on CA refuges and are pushing too change it as they only serve hunters-this is unacceptable& like in Nevada the State FISH/GAME/WILDLIFE SERVICES in CA. are totally corrupt and kill kill kill for ranchers, hunters etc. I also mention ending hunting as hunters kill animals and animals have it hard enough with out people murdering them and making it dangerous for all the rest of us also as they are always shooting everything and are not responsible and have terrible safety record. Who wants to take their kids hiking and get shot and watch them murder animals !
Regarding Wilderness Stewardship. A suggestion, we should delete the word “relatively.” See Vision Document and Wilderness Act text below. Better yet, quote the Act.
Vision Document, Page 21, Line 5 or so: “Wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act, is relatively untrammeled (“free from man’s control”), undeveloped and natural and offers outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation.”
In the Wilderness Act of 1964: “DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. ”
In addition Page 21: A key component of the “Minimum Tool Decision Guide” is that prior to determining the minimum tool, one must decide if an action (e.g., a study) is necessary at all. Restraint come first with that decision and that distinction is lost in the text.
I think this is a very comprehensive and high level vision for the organization. Of course the devel is in the details as always. GREAT beginning and now for the work of implementing it. Good job everyone. Thank you for the time and effort put in to this BIG project by all participants.
The Blue Goose Alliance (BGA) has reviewed the Draft Vision document and has come to some conclusions relative to offering BOLD idea/s for consideration. The sentence beginning on line 19, page one of the Draft Vision is rather telling – “This draft vision document begins with a look back at the Refuge System’s history of dealing with urgent conservation challenges through innovation, perseverance and leadership.”
Yes! As portrayed in that sentence, the beginning did take innovation, perseverance and leadership. Without those elements there would be no National Wildlife Refuge System today. Perhaps it would help to analyze what it took by way of innovation, perseverance and leadership to achieve the Refuge System as we know it.
We are BOLD enough to suggest that to Conserve the Future we should go back to the Refuge System’s history to determine how past generations dealt with Conserving the Future. We are all aware of the beginning – an action by the champion of all conservationists – President Theodore Roosevelt and his Executive Order establishing a bird sanctuary at Pelican Island. Before he was done he established scores of bird sanctuaries, the Bison Range as the first refuge for a truly endangered species, plus monuments, parks and forest reserves.
Everything had to be built from scratch – a home in the bureaucracy; protectors (wardens) of the lands and the wildlife (the military in Yellowstone National Park); managers (leaders) with knowledge, innovation and talent; and of course the funds to operate. The foundation for all the essentials was politicians with insight who recognized the need for legislation that was required to assure the authority and funding to function.
The next essential elements were (and still are) organization and leadership in that order. How an organization is structured in a bureaucracy (or in a manufacturing or business enterprise) is the determining factor in its success. “Staking Out the Terrain” by Jeanne Nienaber Clarke and Daniel C. McCool (Second Edition) is a classic study of Power and Performance among Natural Resource Agencies. During reorganization hearings in 1976 a departmental official characterized the Fish and Wildlife Service as “merely a little branch buried in the Department of the Interior.” We all know today that the National Wildlife Refuge System is merely a program – “Buried in Bureaucracy” – in the Fish and Wildlife Service.
This leads us to Leadership. It is obvious the Refuge System had excellent leadership in the early years, particularly at the field level. Otherwise it would have died in ignominy. There are jewels in the system that are recognized worldwide for their contribution to the preservation and conservation of wildlife and their habitats. These units exist due to the dedication and leadership of successive managers (leaders) over the decades. This has not been an easy task when considering Fish and Wildlife Service expansion and continuous change in Directors does not allow time for each to acquire a real understanding of what the needs are of the Refuge system and how best to meet the needs of managing 553 units of more than 150 million acres of wildlife and wilderness. Recently, one individual, upon being appointed Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, observed he was concerned with five important issues, which he would address under his watch. The Refuge System wasn’t one of the five – not worthy of his attention. Yet, there are more than 250 units that do not have any staff assigned on site, plus there is a shortfall of more than three billion dollars needed for operation and maintenance throughout the system.
Our BOLD IDEA is that the National Wildlife Refuge System be elevated to agency status within the Department of the Interior. This would provide a single purpose organization. Every staff member from the Director down to the only maintenance person on the smallest refuge in the system would all be working for wildlife and their habitats throughout the System.
The foregoing begs the question then of how has the Refuge System been able to survive and grow in area to the 3rd largest land resource management agency among our Nation’s extensive living resource lands? The answer takes us back to leadership and the earliest organization. In the expansion and growth of the System, the leadership of refuges recognized it was a System. Migratory bird management was the most obvious of reasons. Migratory birds need a variety of habitats at various times of the year. To manage this resource requires the knowledge of habitat requirements during a yearly cycle. Through innovative management of habitat, perseverance of acquiring habitat and leadership that applied scientific methods in management, the refuge system has expanded over the years.
A single purpose organization (refuges) and quality leadership were key elements for training new generations of managers. Scientific knowledge is the basis for understanding ecology and the realization that migratory wildlife does not exist in a vacuum. Diversity of habitats provides a diversity of wildlife. Hence the challenge of expanding responsibilities called for special talents and disciplines. No one should question the collective ability of Refuge Managers and staff to evolve, to innovate, to persevere and to lead, since they have demonstrated their capabilities throughout the most trying of times for more than a century.
As refuges evolved, certain things were lost through rapid growth and battles with the organizational structure of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Early leaders recognized that to have a system function properly there was a need for training and guidance for new generations joining the ranks and as staff became more mobile in their career. With expansion it became essential to develop an Refuge Manual. It provided guidance for understanding the history of the organization, the laws that applied to protection of the land and resources, and the policies to be adhered to whether you were in California or Florida or Maine or North Dakota. This was the bible for any new employee and certainly a reference for old hands. That guidance has been lost for wont of leadership and understanding at the Directorate level of the FWS.
Refuge Managers have long exhibited the ability to accept conservation challenges. Every generation through the history of the Refuge System has been faced with planning for the future. Likewise each generation has recognized the importance of science in management techniques. Even though the Refuge System has been characterized as ‘America’s Hidden Lands’ it is not the fault of Refuge Managers. They all recognize the importance of refuges to wildlife, and that the system harbors the greatest outdoor laboratories in existence for American youth.
In Summary, the National Wildlife Refuge System needs an organizational structure with a single leader dedicated only to National Wildlife Refuges and to the employees – a leader who represents the system before Congress and before the public; who sets policy and directs the future course for the system. The Refuge Managers of today are in tune with the present. They understand global warming. They understand that Americans yearn for the opportunities offered by the Refuge System. They are acutely aware of what is needed for conserving the future, and they want the opportunity to demonstrate what they can accomplish with a leader who will guide them into the future. But, to Conserve the Future, we need to first step back in history and provide them an organizational structure which will unleash their dedication to the preservation, conservation and management of the Refuge System for wildlife for the enjoyment of all Americans. Leadership can only keep pace with the challenges of the future if they are freed from the shackles of being “a mere program buried in the Fish and Wildlife Service.”
The premise that the National Wildlife Refuge System should be elevated organizationally has been repeatedly recommended by prominent individuals and conservation organizations for decades. These recommendations have fallen on deaf ears and the System today is less prominent organizationally than any time in its history. The time has come for bold action to chart the Refuge System’s future and provide the opportunity to correct this persistent deficiency.
Sincerely,
/s/ Ronald L. Fowler
Ronald Fowler, President
Blue Goose Alliance
General comments:
1. There is no broad, far-reaching vision in the draft beyond a “rainbow” collection of various programatic actions. These are important, but this vision needs to go well beyond a 10 year period. By trying to be everything to everybody in the draft, we become less visionary. It is just too important of a time to not be looking longer term in establishing a new vision.
2. In trying to satisfy a contemporary trend, we should not try to fit something like refuge system landscapes that have taken hundreds, thousands, or millions of years to form and try to describe that in 144 characters. This may increase awareness but we should be cautious about the substance of our messaging to the public.
This is all about style of communication — yes we work within one of America’s best kept secrets of hidden treasures that are complex, diverse, unique, and wonderful naturally. We need to develop succinct, accurate conservation messages that tell people what we do, and what the refuge system is all about. Leopold’s messages endure today because they were simple and understandable, and then linked back to a conservation base. In today’s “wired” world, we can’t forget about that linkage.
Specific comments:
1. Relates to regional transportation planning and on page 33 and also on page 17/line 25 regarding additional staffing at refuges to work outside the boundaries — Providing resources at refuges to work outside the boundaries is vitally important for both transportation and conservation/landscapes. Every refuge open to the public has some type of transportation connection that needs coordination with outside agencies whether it be state, regional,local, or tribal. The transportation planning process has matured over the past 20 years, but it can be a long and arduous process to follow. We need to give strong consideration to strategic addition of resources for transportation at key refuges or clusters where that makes sense. If resources are not available, we should seek out other means such as training and educational programs better equip existing staff.
2. Page 22/line 13 — CCPs– All CCPs in Cycle 2.0 should have a stronger transportation component. Very few Cycle 1.0 CCPs had any significant consideration of transportation except for about 10-20 refuges where detailed studies were completed. Many refuges may not need much. But many refuges do not understand their transportation needs. Cycle 2.0 will be a good opportunity to link CCP conservation planning with transportation planning being conducted by others within the NWRS and in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration. In the non-federal world of planning, the best comprehensive or master plans are those that integrate some type of land use with transportation. It is time we do the same within the NWRS.
3. Regarding page 32/line 35 and statement that relevancy is linked to access. I agree with this statement, but it should go much further than that. The American public needs to know that the NWRS exists. Everyone knows about the National Parks. Our increase in awareness needs to go beyond locals and birders. This should be a strong goal in this new vision.
4. Page 34/line 5 — suggest striking “Greenspaces in cities have little wildlife value.” There is tremendous value and if people are looking to better connect those areas, their potential value is huge. We need to stop looking at landscapes through the “scale lens” only appreciated by refuge system biologists.
Steve Suder
National Coordinator, Refuge Transportation Program
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
What concerns me most about our wildlife refuges are two issues: ANWR’s status, which I believe needs to be upgraded ASAP to national monument before Congress opens it to the oil industry and the concept of hunting and trapping in a refuge. It hardly seems a refuge if sports killing and recreational trapping are allowed to take place. The wildlife is no safer there than it would be out in the general public domain. It’s habitat may be preserved but that doesn’t mean a great deal to the wolf strangling in a snare or the bear with a bullet through its lungs.
Indeed, I applaud the recent decision of the USFWS to NOT allow the State of Alaska to spread its notorious wolf decimation efforts to the Unimak Island Refuge and I hope this presages a strong and unwaivering attitude within the refuge system to resist all such efforts as Alaska is not going to cease trying. It already has plans to attempt wolf killing in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.
I have followed this process for several months now, commented on earlier chapters, and read through the current draft. This process has embraced social media, which is fun, and there are some wonderful thoughts (and some awful ones), but I don’t know if they lead to better writing in this vision. I really can’t see where my initial comments were even considered. Perhaps they were considered and not used, which is fine, but one never knows in cyber-world.
I am a recently retired refuge manager, and now it is another generation’s turn to guide the Refuge System. That is how it should be. But somewhere along this current vision path we lost much of the passion and focus that made the last vision special. We remain first and foremost land managers and keepers of unique national treasures and landscapes. I’m fully supportive of working off-refuges, and was one of the pioneers in the Private Lands Program, but we are not about ecosystem or landscape management for all of America. Perhaps the Service is, or wants to be, but that is not the charge for refuges per the Refuge System Administration Act amended by the Refuge Improvement Act.
I remain puzzled by why leadership did not take the 1999 vision and update it versus starting anew. It is like people decided to rewrite Sand County Almanac to make it more modern, and lost Leopold’s heart and soul along the way.
Don’t get me wrong, there is very good material in this draft. But there is also much chaff. There remain too many recommendations for the life of this vision, and recommendations that are so wishy-washy that a person, or an agency, will never know if they were accomplished, or can just claim they were since there is little measurement language. A lot more boldness would be welcome. Solving some long-standing organizational and administrative frustrations would be a good addition.
What’s needed now is a competent overall editor to shine and polish the final product. And please, get rid of the abundance of catch-phrases that reflect inconcise writing and a bit of biological hubris. Some examples: “going forward,” “ecological resilience,” “adaptive prioritization model,” “indespensible decision analysis model,” “reactive adaptation,” and “conservation delivery tools.” Will the public, Friends, and much of Refuge System staff understand such terms? If the non-biologists among us don’t understand, we fail.
Well enough. Good luck with reaching a final vision, and most importantly, carrying it out. Despite my concerns, I have no doubt that the people on the ground will do the right thing with the resources at hand, and the Refuge System will continue to nurture the greatest system of lands for wildlife, and people, in the world. For over 100 years it has been so, and for the next 100 years as well.
I am considered, I suppose, a NWRS “partner”: a biologist who has done contract work at several units of my regional refuge. I am so dismayed at the decisions being made, I am remaining anonymous here so that I can be frank with my comments on this draft plan.
On page 13, the document states: “The Refuge System Improvement Act incorporated a new standard for management in the law: refuges are to be managed to protect and maintain biological integrity, diversity and environmental health.” As well, many pages in this document refer to the importance of science-based decision making. This is NOT happening at my local refuge, and I do not see strong evidence that it is occurring at others in my region. Wildlife takes a second place to people, and when wildlife, biodiversity, or environmental health is considered, management decision are also based on people’s desires — often those with little or no ecological knowledge, focused on pretty landscapes or charismatic, viewable animals, never mind whether the landscapes or animals are resilient, functioning components of a healthy ecosystem.
Page 14 indicates a mandate for “Critical conservation delivery strategies to enhance ecological resilience include maintaining or restoring the ecological integrity of existing conservation units” and paying attention to adaptation to future climate conditions, yet I see a stubborn adherence to “restore” to pre-European settlement conditions. Actual examples I have experienced include a unit that had a functioning habitat that needed to be managed and enhanced, yet was completely bulldozed to make way for a totally different habitat that was more aesthetically pleasing and “desirable” because of its regional decline. Due to lack of funding, much of this land will be barren for months, certainly not function as a whole ecosystem for years, and cost a fortune to maintain in this state if it is even possible. Another example is the luring of charismatic animals to breed in marginal habitat without a science-based rationale, perhaps creating a population sink. There was no consideration of the current larger landscape, what it could bear, and why these animals were no longer present as breeding species.
Page 24 reiterates that “The Refuge System commits to embracing four foundational elements in its vision for conservation science” of which two are “Application of sound science to refuge management,” and “Implementation of robust inventory and monitoring” and page 26 goes on to note that “The Refuge System Improvement Act directs the Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife and plants on each wildlife refuge.” The lack of this, at least locally, is a major failing. Funding for this type of basic monitoring work is hard to come by, and when I have been able to do this on a contract basis, my findings have been buried or ignored. In part, this was due to the fact that many of the unique species found where I worked were not “trust resources” so although regionally rare (and some listed in our state as special concern) they garnered no particular interest and certainly did not factor into any conservation planning.
I could provide further examples, but it really boils down to getting back to the purpose of the NWRS (to conserve biodiversity) and how to achieve that goal (through science-based management). I wholeheartedly agree with Norma Klein, who commented “What really needs to be done is implement the ‘Wildlife First’ dictum of that vision and the Law on which it was based” and with Julie Kates who wrote, “I think we need to start emphasizing biodiversity over trust resources.”
DO WE NEED ANY MORE ‘VISION’ THAN THAT? I agree with others who see still more planning, and too little action. This is exemplified on page 22, which notes that in 2012, CCPs will be done for all refuges, yet some will be a decade old. The recommendation is to review, and “update the planning policy prior to the next round of planning.” ENDLESS PLANNING! Let’s just have some ACTION!
Finally, revisiting the Appropriate Use policy is just veering away from both the mission and the science. The NWRS does not need to be all things to all people, as has been pointed out. Recreational use such as running dogs, kite flying, etc. are not wildlife -dependent or -oriented recreation, do not foster public understanding and appreciation of the natural world, and have nothing to do with (and are probably at odds with) the importance of conservation science in managing the Refuge System — all things discussed in the document as mandates of the NWRS. Further, they run the risk of alienating those who wish to use the Refuges as actual “refuges” from the bustle of our regular lives and connect with nature.
Frankly, I feel the “vision” can be scrapped — what is needed is an immediate action plan to uphold the mission and a science-based approach to management. Let’s do it.
There is only one recommendation to improve the Refuge Law Enforcement Program, i.e., “Complete law enforcement reforms and staff wildlife refuges with sufficient officers to protect wildlife and habitat and make refuges safe places for staff and visitors.” For an important and dynamic refuge program, it seems there needs to be more “vision” of how we should improve this program over the next 15 years. There have been many positive changes to the Refuge LE program since implementing the Keystone Conference recommendations and the subsequent recommendations after the 9/11 attack. However it appears that our overall law enforcement coverage (i.e., number of officers) on refuges has declined over the last 10 to 12 years. There are many issues in the Refuge LE program that need to be addressed in addition to what seems to be identified in the Vision recommendation, which seems to imply that we should just continue to implement “old reforms” and to hire more officers, both of which are mostly limited by budget constraints. Some of the main issues that need to be addressed in the Refuge LE program are: (1) LE officer recruitment and retention (limited career ladder for officers); (2) training requirements that seem arbitrary and parochial to this agency resulting in cost inefficiency and hindering recruitment: (3) and improvement of educational standards for LE candidates (refuge LE is specialized LE dealing with both people and natural resources in the 21st century). We also need to have a comprehensive review of refuge regulations in 50 CFR to improve their applicability to the new issues and uses impacting national wildlife refuges.
Finally, we need to evaluate the feasibility of having the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, negotiate with the States to establish concurrent jurisdiction for all lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). In regard to the NWRS, the term jurisdiction defines the sphere of legal authority and outlines the authority and control of the agency over the lands within the NWRS. There are three basic types of jurisdiction: (1) exclusive, (2) concurrent, and (3) proprietary. Most national wildlife refuges are under proprietary jurisdiction, meaning the agency only has the same rights to protect their property as any other landowner in the state; therefore, refuge law enforcement officers can enforce only federal laws on a refuge. However, concurrent jurisdiction would allow refuge law enforcement officers to enforce federal laws and also to assimilate state laws under 18 USC 13 (Assimilative Crimes Act) when no applicable federal law or regulation exists. Concurrent jurisdiction would allow for a more efficient enforcement of both state and federal laws within the refuges. In other words, concurrent jurisdiction would be a means of providing increased and improved protection to refuge visitors and natural resources, and would help limit the liability of refuge law enforcement officers when assisting state officers with enforcing state laws on refuge lands. It would also improve the cooperation and coordination between refuge and local law enforcement agencies. It is the policy of the National Park Service to have all their lands converted to concurrent jurisdiction for the benefits described above.
How to Measure Success of the Conference relative to Biological Resources:
The NWRS should ask ourselves the questions; “What can we tell the American public about the wildlife contribution of the NWRS?” “What should we be able to tell the American Public about how the NWRS contributes to the Nation’s natural resources?” Presently, we could only tell the public vague generalities about the refuge system, items such as; acreage, species lists, energy use, etc. The NWRS needs to identify clear objectives as to what our (NWRS) contribution toward wildlife resources is. Developing such objectives would greatly enhance individual refuge ability to determine their respective role within the NWRS and allow for efficient and effective development of refuge CCPs and HMPs.
The profession of wildlife management has historically been based upon an agricultural philosophy. Management to produce more deer, geese, pheasants, etc is based largely upon agricultural principles. Recently, the profession as a whole is evolving toward an ecological philosophy and conservation biology. This is the correct direction for the NWRS to go. Unfortunately, many of our current management actions are still based upon agricultural philosophy. Some of these management actions are performed mostly from tradition, and over the years have become Dogma, without ever having been proved to be the most effective or efficient management. We in the NWRS need to question our management actions, identify our management uncertainties, and bring a greater degree of science into management of the NWRS. Hopefully the Vision Conference can move us in this direction.
The NWRS has recently created National (Fort Collins) and Regional Inventory and Monitoring staffs to address I&M needs of the Refuge System. This is a challenging task for these offices to accomplish. Presently, the NWRS does not have clear objectives, thus there are no objectives for I&M efforts to help evaluate whether or not they have been achieved. Additionally, Regional or Central Office staffs have not identified management decisions or uncertainties they have in making decisions. Thus, it is difficult to determine what information (I&M) decision-makers require to make better, more scientifically defensible decisions. The Vision Conference will be a success if I&M staff leave the conference knowing what the NWRS inventory and monitoring needs are to inform various NWRS spatial scale decisions, or to evaluate if the NWRS achieves its objectives. If we leave the conference without NWRS objectives, thus still in the position of not knowing what to evaluate or what our NWRS information needs are, then the Vision conference hasn’t helped us out, or resulted in a Vision of where the NWRS should go in the future.
The NWRS is approached by many agencies/organizations to participate in monitoring programs that those agencies have developed. If the NWRS selects to participate in these programs, based solely on the request, then we are reacting to the needs of other agencies. It may be very appropriate to participate in some of these programs. However, prior to doing so, the NWRS must first determine what our NWRS I&M needs are. In this manner, we will be proactively identifying the information needed by the NWRS to effectively and efficiently meet our Mission and achieve our objectives. Once the NWRS has identified our critical information needs, we may then effectively evaluate our participation in I&M programs proposed by other organizations.
I know a lot of hard work went into this draft vision, and I am hugely grateful to those who did the very difficult work of drafting the core team documents, and those who have pieced together the many different documents and comments received from the core teams. A few of my own personal comments:
1. I recommend stressing “one Service” within the document. As discussed in the Draft Vision, working collaboratively with partners is necessary for the Service to succeed in conserving our flora and fauna for future generations. Similarly, we, within the Service, must work collaboratively to succeed in our mission. Making this collaboration an explicit aspect of the Vision would provide us the opportunity to lead by example, and help to instill in Service employees the importance of cross-program collaboration toward achieving our goals. Within the Service we are fortunate to have extremely dedicated individuals working in several different programs to achieve the Service’s mission. As the land base of our agency, the Refuge system serves a critical role in carrying out the on-the-ground conservation needs identified by other programs within the Service. And, as the program through which our agency has direct contact with the public, it serves as our conservation role model to others. The role of Refuges as one of many programs working together to achieve the Service’s mission is not currently apparent in the Draft Vision. I recommend: 1) describing Refuges within the context of the agency, and putting forth a vision of Refuges working together with other Service programs to achieve both the Refuge’s and Service’s missions; 2) reinforcing the message by reiterating cross-program collaboration elsewhere in the document where appropriate (for instance, the recommendation on pg. 11 could be rephrased from “Finalize a policy and implementation plan to guide land conservation efforts of the Refuge System.” To “Work with the other Service programs to develop and finalize a policy and implementation plan to guide land conservation efforts of the Refuge System;” 3) make it more apparent within the document that, in its role as the Service’s interface with the public, the NWRS is an advocate for, and source of information on other Service programs; and 4) Tie the discussion of Law Enforcement to various laws being enforced. Provide the context for why LE is so important by naming the conservation laws that they enforce (not only hunting regs but also ESA, etc) and providing an explanation as to why those laws are important to enforce.
2. As identified in the Draft Vision, working toward the conservation of biodiversity is an important role of NWRS (and the Service). The most fundamental step in preventing biodiversity loss is preventing extinctions. As the implementing Agency for the ESA, our Endangered Species Program plays a critical role within the Service in identifying species at risk of extinction, and identifying actions that will lead to recovery. Similarly, as manager of our agency’s land base, the Refuge system plays a critical role in on-the-ground recovery of T &E species. Consequently, preventing biodiversity loss through recovery of T & E species is a prominent component of our future vision for our NWRS. Although I know (because I’m on one of the core teams) the intention is there, it is not apparent in the Draft Vision that recovering threatened and endangered species is an important aspect of the NWRS vision for the future. I recommend: 1) early on in the document, and also elsewhere in the document where appropriate, explicitly clarifying that conserving biodiversity means preventing extinctions, and that a critical role of our NWRS in conserving biodiversity includes managing our lands toward recovery of species identified by the ES program as being in danger of extinction
3) Although hunting and fishing are a traditional use of Refuges, there are 5 others within the “big 6″. Consequently, I was dismayed that the only recommendations under “connecting people with nature” involve connecting people with nature through hunting. Given hunting is a traditional use of Refuges, these recommendations seem particularly “un-visionary” I’m not opposed to hunting or fishing, and, in fact, am extremely appreciative of the contribution hunters and fishermen/women have made to conservation. However, I recommend under “Connecting People with Nature”, adding “Coordinate with other programs within the Service, and outside partners, to promote non-sport natural resource activities on Refuges in order to enhance the connection between people and nature”.
Here are a few comments that came to mind while skimming the website:
1) People tend to confuse the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System – “the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats” – with the mission of the National Park Service – “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same.” No doubt there is overlap in these two missions, but there are also points of departure. It is not the place of this document to compare and contrast these different missions, but it would be useful to more forcefully promote the specific mission of the refuge system.
2) Several commenters stated that the refuge system is mandated to conserve biological diversity. This is partly true, which means, by definition, it is partly false. The refuge system is mandated, according to the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained.” Some in the literature have condensed this to ecological integrity. A system has integrity when it is resistant to change caused by disturbance or, given a level of disturbance that creates change, quickly recovers to its pre-disturbance condition. Such a system has intact ecological processes and a full complement of native species. Note that while biological diversity is an important component of ecological integrity, it is not the sum total of the concept. In keeping with the refuge system’s congressional mandate, strategic goals should be addressed in terms of of ecological integrity, not biodiversity.
3) Science-based management is vital to sound wildlife and habitat management. It is not, however, the only basis. An ecologically sound decision that isn’t economically feasible or socially acceptable is a bad decision. The development of good wildlife managers is more then their scientific training. The ability to apply critical thinking to the compromises that must be made on a day to day basis is essential to good management. This ability comes through work experience. It can be cultivated through mentoring programs and promoted by various certification programs. Career pathways from entry level to retirement help retain the investment made by the Service in its employees. While this document addresses the need to increase the scientific capabilities of the refuge system, it also need to address these types of employee development and retention programs.
Nathan Caldwell,
Region Nine, Division of Visitor Services and Communications,
Branch of Visitor Services, National Wildlife Refuge System
Comments on the NWRS “Conserving the Future” Vision Document.
Human-Nature
I applaud the recommendations to interpret the compatibility procedures and emphasis on the “Big 6” more broadly. This should indeed bring a larger audience of conservation minded recreationalists to NWRs and add to the constituency base of the NWRS.
The NWRS had formal partnerships established with trail and human powered recreation since 2005, specifically with the Partnership for the National Trails System, American Trails and the American Hiking Society, these groups are enthusiastic supports of the NWRS and need to be considered as fuller partners for targets for NWRS outreach and involvement with CCP and other planning development. These groups are also experienced and successful advocates for trails and human powered recreation at all levels of government. They should be included in all outreach plans that inform Congress.
Concerns expressed about inappropriate uses on NWRs are real but overblown. The vast majority of ‘human-powered” recreationists are supporters of the goals of the FWS and NWRS, and not welcoming them reduces the reach of the FWS to accomplish its mission. It is hard to justify a restriction on a refuge for bicycling as a wildlife disturbing activity when the NWRS welcomes hunters to shoot birds and other game. There are many more bicyclists and hiker and paddlers these days than hunters. Getting people to just visit a NWR unit for a non-consumptive, non-motorized recreational experience is the first step in getting them interested in wildlife dependent recreation.
The statement that uses like jogging, biking, etc on page 35 lines 1 & 2 that states that the impact of such activities “may not harm wildlife if the number of participants is limited” should be changed to “ if a comprehensive, clear management plan is developed and executed”. Attempts to limit numbers of participants as the main method of management have been less successful than managing the use with a variety of methods.
Trails on NWRs and trails in general bring a wide range of benefits Including real economic benefits of trails and open space.
Property values of homes near trails, refuges, parks and natural open spaces are consistently higher than similar residential developments in neighborhoods without such amenities. What’s more, neighborhoods with trails and open space create healthier lifestyles, potentially reducing the cost of health services. With over 65 percent of our nation overweight or obese, trails and open space provide a critical link to building healthy communities. Adults and children who live in walkable neighborhoods with access to trails get 40 minutes more exercise per week than people of the same socio-economic status living in neighborhoods without access to trails. Refuges should be part of the trail resources available to their neighboring communities to help them have populations that are significantly less likely to be overweight or obese.
Trails also create opportunities for our neighbors to get to know the refuge and more fully develop a sense of how the refuge benefits the community.Given the influence of trails and open space on local economies, community health and sense of place, refuge managers should see trails and open space as an obvious and critical investment in the refuge’s, NWRS’ and local community’s future, with economic and environmental benefits that outweigh their costs.
Now is the time for the NWRS to build capacity in trails and participate in open space planning and development in communities surrounding refuges. Beside enhancing wildlife appreciation this will enhance local property values, reduce the costs of our obesity health crisis and broaden the NWR place in the local of community.
The NWRS can’t afford to overlook the benefits of trails and connecting to open space beyond refuge boundaries. The health of our system and neighboring communities will be influenced for generations by the trails and connections we build.
Conservation Planning
Recommendation on Page 22 lines 21-24 evaluating the completed CCPs for how they addressed transportation issues on refuges and the issues in accessing NWRs needed to be an criterion. Transportation is a major land use on and off NWR lands and too many times it was not addressed in CCPs.
Recommendation on page 23 lines 2 through 4. Transportation planning and coordination with state, regional and local transportation and land use planners needs to be specifically mentioned and laid out in some general guidelines, as transportation is major land use that impacts wildlife and habitat on a wide range on and off refuges.
Recommendation in the Human – Nature section page 33, lines 1&2 The Service is already engaged in regional transportation planning. Lonq Range Transportation Planning for resource agencies with transportation programs has been a requirement since 1998, when TEA-21, the Surface Transportation Act reauthorization that created the Refuge Roads Program was passed. The requirement was strengthened by SAFETEA-LU, passed in 2005, and still in force through FY 2011. As the Service receives funds from the Highway Trust Fund through the Refuge Roads Program from the Federal Highway Administration under USC Title 23 and from the Federal Transit Administration through the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in the Parks Program under USC Title 49 along with the NPS and Forest Service, Service LRTPs must be “consistent” with Metropolitan and State Department of Transportation LRTPs. The Service began its LRTP effort in 2007 with Region One. A Federal Register announcement asking for comments on the draft R1 LRTP will be published in April 2011. A draft of a multi-agency LRTP for Alaska that includes all four of the Federal Land Management Agencies and the Alaska DOT should be out for comment by the end of calendar year 2011. A draft National LRTP effort is well underway, and should produce a draft for comment by the end of the FY. Region 3 is in the preliminary process of their LRTP process.
These LRTPs are not being done to only satisfy legal and policy requirements., but as documented long range visions of how the many aspects of transportation can be incorporated into the way refuges are managed, and how they work with their surrounding communities for the future.
Transit and Trails access to NWRs
The statement on page 32 lines 42-45 is a good start to increasing access to NWRs multi-modally and to a broader range of constituents, Transit and trails access needs to be considered at all NWRs , and actively implemented with local transit, and trails organizations where ever available and practical. The Transit and Trails Access document I uploaded to the Vision webpage at two group sites is the first analysis for this access, It should be used as a basis for implementing and expanding new and existing trail and transit system access. Providing transit and non-motorized access is way to provide equity to all populations in access to NWRs, as many of the population the FWS wants to reach and encourage do not have access or have limited access to private vehicles. There is limited return on EE trips to NWRs or staff visits to local schools and other institutions if there is no assured way of getting students and, just as importantly their parents, out to NWRs or other national areas. Many of the economic and racial/ethnic groups that the NWRS is targeting for increased visitation have a significantly lower percentage of house households with access to private motor vehicles than the rest of the population. Working with local, State, and Federal transportation, and recreation partners can provide a the needed transportation element in “Connecting People with Nature” for getting a more diverse population out to visit NWRs.
Need to address Tourism in Human-Nature
The authors of the final draft of the Vision Document need to correct the statement that most refuge visitation is from local areas. According to the 2006 Banking on Nature visitors to refuges are from outside the local area generated . 87% of total expenditures generated by non-consumptive activities on refuges.
The NWRS needs to admit that birding is tourism. The NWRS needs to have in the a Vision Document a commitment to work with local, regional, state and national tourism organizations to promote NWRs and surrounding communities “gateways” , as sustainable, authentic locations for tourism that benefits the resources and economies of the towns and cities near NWRs. The Serviced is a signatory to an MOU with other federal land management agencies to promote sustainable tourism. The Vision Document is an excellent place for the Service to begin to meet its commitments as expressed in that MOU.
Human Health and NWRs
The paragraph on page 41, lines 39-45 is a good start toward recognizing the connecting between human health and NWRs. The NWRS vision needs to include a recommendation to take advantage of the facts NWRS lands benefit human health.. The NPS is embracing a Healthy Parks Healthy People effort because Director Jarvis believes that tying the health of the population to the health of the parks is a method not only for the parks and other public lands to be relevant to the US population., but as essential as other basic services . The idea of providing “environmental services” like clean water, clear air, flood control, etc has to clearly tied to reducing the amount of respiratory and other illnesses and other incidents of mortality and morbidity. The communities near NWRs should be encouraged to view them as places that active recreation and transportation take place. These activities walking, biking, paddling, and other compatible activities have demonstrated health benefits, and are now have been shown through research that they are better for human health than physical activity done in doors. Since there is a documented “obesity crisis” in the US, NWRS need to be part of a “health in all policies” outlook to be relevant to the population as a whole and our Federal and state health agency partners.
Draft Recommendation
Continue the “Refuge Prescriptions” train-the-trainers program, with the National Environmental Education Foundation, and incorporate it into a larger “Health Refuges Healthy People” similar to the NPS effort and coordinate it with national, state and local health agencies and community activists in the areas of health, environmental justice, and access to parks and open space for population that underserved and underrepresented by the NWRS.
Volunteers
The NWRS and FWS is rightly grateful and blessed that people believe so strongly in our mission that they give their most valuable assets their time and energy. Our agency definitely needs to continue to cultivate the attitude of volunteerism, as not all Federal agencies are as lucky as we are to even have people willing to volunteer for them.
However, the FWS and NWRS should NOT be celebrating the fact that volunteers do 20% of our work for us. That indicates a failure of refuge leadership and our supporters to fully fund the needed positions to operate NWRs.
Having volunteers handle most of our front line visitor service contacts sends a message to the visiting public and Congress that the NWRS cares so little about interpretation and visitor services that it can be relegated to volunteers, even at major visitation sites like Pea Island NWR on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. The volunteers who do a good job of interacting with public were not even wearing a consistent uniform and one of them was wearing a NPS volunteer name badge. Not a single uniformed NWR staff was on site.
If the NWRS is trying to attract young and economically and racially diverse population to wildlife conservation careers, a cadre of overwhelming retired and white volunteers greeting the public and even doing administration and maintenance work is not the way to achieve a goal of a diverse workforce. The message that those volunteers send it that you need to retired, have the money to travel, and be white to have a “career” in wildlife conservation.
Specialists Human-Nature
Add Transportation to the list of specialists listed on page 50, line 13. Since transportation is a major land use in the US and within the NWRS, the Service needs to cultivate or recruit staff that are specialists in all phases of transportation. We have a great relationship with the staff at Federal Lands Highway at the HQ and Division levels, and they do share many of our values, and do great wildlife sensitive work for us. However, they are not Service employees, and we need more trained transportation professionals working for the NWRS that can interact at a peer level with the transportation professionals both working for us at Federal Lands Highways, and with the State or local government transportation departments that are working on projects that could impact refuges and their resources.
Uniforms – Human-Nature
The statement on page 41, line 2 regarding the lack of consistency in way NWRS staff wear or don’t wear uniforms should read “ It is time for a change.” If the NWRS is going to be taken seriously as a uniformed Federal land management agency, our staff need to take pride in their appearance and identity as an agency. The NPS has used its uniform as a successful international branding tool, and while the NWRS does not need to go to the sometimes too rigid uniform policies of the NPS, our employees need to have more pride in wearing the FWS uniform.
This pride should start from the top, the Assistant Director and other top executives need to wear the FWS at public appearances , just as the Director of the NPS wears the agency uniform at appropriate public occasions.
Organizational Excellence –Has a Lack of a discussion of Asset Management – Need much more detailed discussion
The Vision of the NWRS must include a clear plan for the next 10 years on how to manage its physical assets. A single bullet in the section on Greening the Wildlife Refuge Infrastructure and Operations paragraph on page 49, line 11. How the NWRS manages its billions of dollars worth of buildings, dams, levees, road, trails and other physical assets is key to its success and future. One of the constant questions the FWS gets from the Department of the Interior and Congress is “How are we managing our huge deferred maintenance backlog?” Based on the need to constantly answer that question, asset management and the data collection and management it requires deserve to be an entire section on their own.
I believe we need to talk about the things that are holding us back from being visionary as a National Wildlife Refuge System. To be “Bold”, “visionary” and to honor our past we need to be prepared to knock down the old and new barriers to accomplish the challenges of the future.
We need to discuss administrivia, reorganization, and processes that make us ineffective.
My bold ideas are to:
1) Look at the organizational structure of the Refuge System. Establish an organizational structure that gives us more of a voice in Washington at the Bureau and the Secretary level. I believe in working as one entity, the Service. However, the volume and complexity of issues that always burden the Fish and Wildlife Service prohibits important issues in Refuges from getting the attention they need.
2) So much productivity is being lost because of administrivial burdens of the organization. Some of these things cannot be avoided. We need to reward and hold managers as accountable for how well they manage and protect habitat and the quality of public use programs as we do for getting training and reports in on time. We have lost what is important. We are measuring the wrong widgets.
3) Budget, personnel and land acquisition processes are preventing us from accomplishing the critical mission tasks. The training and processes are affecting our ability to meet our mission.
• We need to grow the contracting ability of the Refuge System sufficient to meet the needs of all refuges. We should do this by increasing the number of contracting specialist in the field and in a way that does not burden every employee with training to procure goods.
• We also need to grow our personnel management ability and place these positions in the field.
• I consider one of the most important issues is the Service Land Acquisition program. The processes we use to grow the refuge system preclude us from bringing the most ecologically important properties into the system. We need to establish a new system of prioritizing how we grow. The new system should reward working with partners, abandon the current appraisal system and use more flexible appraisal processes — one that is not different from how lands are appraised in the public sector. We should give up the FWS right to condemn land except for “friendly condemnations”. We should negotiate a consistent procedures across all regions on how appraisals will be ordered and how they will be reviewed by Office of Valuation Services (OVS).
I would like to comment on conserving the future of the National Wildlife Refuge System for generations here today and in the future. The National Wildlife Refuge System is a wonderful collection of land and water that is managed as a system for wildlife first while providing benefits for generations of Americans. It is a system that when directed through quality leadership, must conserve, manage and restore wildlife and their habitats. We must remember the Refuge System is guided by the Refuge Administration Act and the Refuge System Improvement Act. In the Improvement Act we must fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; we must fulfill the individual purpose of each Refuge; we must recognize indentified wildlife dependent recreational uses such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation as legitimate and priority public uses. We must understand some principles in the Refuge System that wildlife comes first, habitats must be healthy, growth must be strategic and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management and that our management has broad participation with partners. I believe our Vision should be bold, but the bold ideas that have been posted on this site are all over the place. We must prioritize the direction of the Refuge System based on law and mission. Our vision must carry out the wildlife heritage of this country, the vision must capture that we are a wildlife first organization, an organization that invites and partners with the American public to carry out compatible uses while working with our friends, students and outdoor enthusiasts. We are a Refuge System that manages land and wildlife through the use of quality science, reviews our work through monitoring and adapts to increase our efficacy. We must focus and prioritize based on the laws that guide us and the mission that leads us.
We must also share the values of our Refuge lands, those social and economic benefits that must be articulated to our American public. The economic returns from recreation, tourism, flood attenuation, water quality improvements, reduced erosion, education, ground water recharge; the list is long and our social and political leaders need to know these values. We are wildlife first, we have wonderful habitats, but we have so much more to offer based on how this land functions.
We are a system of land and water that is lead and managed by wildlife managers and biologists, a system that shares our success using our outreach, recreation and education specialists, a system maintained by our qualified maintenance personnel and wonderful support staffs.
The National Wildlife Refuge System must be guided by quality leaders that know and understand the working parts of the System. It must be piloted by influential and innovative personnel with great passion and vision that have walked the grounds, heard the sounds, understand the day to day challenges and opportunities of our Refuge System. Our leaders must be inspiring, honest, and candid and show great compassion for this treasured landscape. They need to lead and create leaders.
I hope our new course will be bold, will be visionary and carry out the heritage, the legacy of the Refuge System, America’s wildlife tradition. We need a strong clear direction that remembers the past, follows the requirements of the Refuge System Improvement Act, the principles and mission and secures the future of some of the most important habitat and wildlife resources on this North American continent. Our Refuge System is a landscape of success that can prove to be a component of overall landscape conservation. We must respect what the National Wildlife Refuge System has accomplished and how it needs to be managed. I ask of you, those who are crafting our new map for success to consider these foundations.
Kudos to all the folks involved in preparing this draft and to those who have provided comments; a considerable amount of effort has gone into the document.
Like others that have posted here, I am surprised at the limited continuity between this document and the 1999 Promises document. Yes, things have changed since then- most notably our ability to discuss climate change- and updates to Promises are needed. However, I think many of the subjects in the Promises vision remain relevant today and some of the headings in the new document could be considered components of the basic 6 Promises visions. It seems like an organizational vision should maintain some sense of consistency over time- basic tenets that lie at the core of the agency that will evolve as needed but can be used to assess progress and shifting needs. The Promises document provided a good basic vision that was also inspirational, but it is rarely mentioned in the new vision (mentioned 4 times by name).
I would be curious to see a comprehensive assessment of what was done to address Fulfilling the Promise recommendations and how successful those efforts were. I was on a Promises team, and we put a lot of time and effort into the process. As far as I can tell, these efforts largely came to naught, in part because there was no funding to carry out the recommendations- even relatively simple ones like dedicating a person to maintain a website. I don’t know how many other teams met a similar fate. I would hate to see us go down a path where we “re-vision” every 10-15 years and develop new goals and objectives that we won’t be able to address due to funding realities.
I am not sure who the audience is for the current vision document. When writing portions of a CCP, I was told to omit or define terms considered to be jargon, including words like “avian” and “transect.” Many of the terms used in this document are considerably more complex.
Following are comments on Chapter 2:
A. Fire management comments, page 15.
1. Strengthen first paragraph wording from “fire-adapted” to “fire-dependent” to drive home the concept that these ecosystems would not persist in the absence of fire.
2. 2nd paragraph: awkward transition from ecological to safety issues in line 31. Vision should stress the ecological need; safety issues are a priority, but they are also already mandated for fire duty.
3. Replace recommendation statement with one that addresses Refuge System/wildlife needs regardless of national policy. For example: Ensure funding to enable the use of natural and prescribed fire for resource benefit in addition to addressing hazard fuels and wildland-urban interface concerns.
4. Line 46: not sure what you’re trying to say by the response to fires by % to % of fire dollars received. Implies an equivalent relationship of dollars to number of responses that I’m not sure exists. Also could imply that we’re not getting things done on the refuge level because we’re responding to fires elsewhere.
5. Page 16, line 7: include trust resources. Some of our oil spill response was not on refuge lands or dealing with refuge resources, but we were working with trust resources.
6. Line 18: Why limit our response to spills? What about hurricanes? FWS sent a number of people to hurricanes Katrina and Rita for a variety of activities including, but not limited to, oil and hazardous materials response.
B. General comments
1. Would like to see “habitat” or “plants” explicitly mentioned in a heading, such as “Strategically Conserving Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat.” Habitat is mentioned often in the text, more so than wildlife in some sections. Headings should reflect this.
2. The document is disjointed at times, and topics sometimes seem to pop up at odd locations. Some things might be better discussed in step-down plans rather than an overall vision document. This contributes to the lack of a “visiony” feel to the document.
For example, consider the farming section on page 16. The first paragraph talks about the use of farming and some of the problems associated with the farming program. The 2nd paragraph jumps to agricultural carbon emissions, and the recommendation is largely based on carbon concerns. Oddly, a search of the document indicated that this was the first use of the terms “carbon” and “sequester”; they weren’t included in the climate change section on page 13. This section, as well as others, appears to be cobbled into the document without much consideration of flow with other sections in the chapter. It seems that the issue, based on the recommendation, is the importance of native vegetation in terms of resilience and ecological integrity; do we really need such a brief, disjointed section on farming in a vision document?
3. Invasive species are identified as one of the “nation’s and the Refuge System’s most pervasive threats to ecological integrity and resilience.” While the recommendations listed are good (update Refuge System’s strategy to include climate change and mobilize 10,000 volunteers in 10 years), perhaps we should be paying more attention to creating adequate infrastructure to address this “pervasive threat?” For example, the Alaska region has about 51% of total refuge lands, and a higher percentage if marine monuments are excluded. In many Alaska refuges, invasive plants do not have large, established populations, but they are increasing throughout the state and their eventual spread onto refuges is imminent. Despite this, the Refuge System in AK does not have an invasive species coordinator. I’m sure similar shortfalls exist in other regions. While mobilization of volunteers is a good recommendation, perhaps we should recommend that all regions have adequate infrastructure to address regional strategies to combat invasives and to help coordinate all the recommended volunteers
4. I like that the document included a discussion on the fact that our approach to and definition of restoration will need to change in the face of climate change.
So many have said before that this document lacks impact. To set the course for a meaningful vision, we must start with the end in mind. Jamie Clark’s blog includes a line that could serve as a broad vision statement encompassing all parts of the document to identify the direction of the Refuge System: “The Refuge System reaches across institutional, cultural, and generational boundaries to catalyze conservation across the landscape.”
Considering the budget landscape in the years to come, our core responsibilities will become the Refuge System’s focus and the responsibilities that receive funding. If we are to remain relevant to the American public we exist to serve, we must leap ahead in our thinking to stress connecting to the natural world while preparing for (not respond to) the social and economic challenges that an ever increasing—and increasingly urban/technologically focused–population will demand of us.
Yes, this ‘look back from our future ideal to the present” must be grounded in law and mission, but the demography of America is changing dramatically and being influenced dramatically by global social and economic issues, and we must first consider our relevance to the changing face of America, then tie a visionary strand that connects the way people living on the planet affects our biological resources together with people’s understanding of their social and economic well-being. Our vision must show continuity with the wildlife heritage of this country, and be guided by the foundational understanding that we are a habitat conservation organization that manages land and wildlife through the use of quality science, but we must cut to the basic element of the human condition, and infuse a sense that the mission of the Service is of utmost relevance to quality of life.
To be bold, with this document, we must step out of our comfortable role and see the work of the Service as reaching beyond our traditional institutional realms of wildlife management and biology, into social science and grassroots community efforts toward sustainability, that reconnect the masses to the natural world in a sustainable manner. We must envision an America that responds to its demand for energy by choosing well-reasoned trade-offs, that is attentive to its effect on the natural environment, and that nurtures future generations to embrace sustainable practices (a 1987 UN conference defined sustainable developments as those that “meet present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”[WECD, 1987]).
I’ll paraphrase what Bill Hartwig, former Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, once said to me: “One of our most important tasks is telling the American people what it is we do. After all, people love wildlife–they just don’t know wildlife is the business of the Refuge System.” Fast-forward a decade, and we can’t be guaranteed the masses will have the luxury of “loving wildlife.” They’ll be increasingly concerned with basic human needs, and our challenge is to help social and political leaders connect America’s Refuges with needs like fresh air, clean water, and health. If we continue to see ourselves only as a system of land and water that is lead and managed by wildlife managers and biologists, we will cease to be relevant enough to America to warrant the budgetary support we need to do all the critically important work we do toward habitat conservation and expand our work toward promoting sustainable practices.
The recommendations included in the draft vision seem ambitious; after all, that’s what a 10-year vision process is all about. For the most part, the vision and recommendations are likely to be regarded favorably by supporters of wildlife refuges (“preaching to the choir”). However, it will be a long, challenging journey from the vision document to goals, objectives, action plans, and implementation. And there will almost surely be a huge public relations gulf to span in order to sell America’s general public (and probably a good share of our Congress members) on allocating the resources required to implement even some of the lofty recommendations to make the vision a reality. The following list is the “Readers’ Digest version” of my feedback.
* Before moving ahead, knowledgeable people with a broad view will want to consolidate and integrate the recommendations across the topical areas that the vision covers. Careful planning up front can reduce duplication of effort and allow goals from different categories to be accomplished simultaneously.
* Brave and forward-thinking people will also need to consider the big picture and then make tough decisions about priorities. What comes first? What is urgent, important, both urgent and important, the “biggest bang for the buck,” likely to result in the best PR message?
* How long will the planning process take, and are we prepared for the long haul? In some cases, studies and research will be required in order to begin planning. In these cases, is it reasonable to expect that planning–much less implementation–can be accomplished within 10 years? If so, is that OK?
* What resources will be allocated for planning and implementation? Without goals, objectives, action plans, and monitoring, the vision will remain a lifeless document on this website. The process will require time, talent, expertise, and money. Will these resources be available? Are there ways that Friends/volunteers can play a hands-on role to support the effort? (I’m sure the volunteer ranks include lots of retired professionals with a lot of talent they would share, if invited.)
* Will the daily business of the Refuge System be jeopardized by planning and implementing this vision? Will refuges and staff already strapped by cut-backs have to sacrifice important local conservation projects to participate in planning? Will goals and objectives resulting from this vision document replace or enhance existing goals and objectives, or will they add more work for people who are already swamped?
* We can’t underestimate the value of effective marketing and public relations to every step of this process. Whether “selling” the Refuge System itself, particular recommendations or ideas, or keeping interested people informed, the PR aspect will be huge and a crucial to success.
I really don’t like to be negative, in part because it usually means I won’t be listened to. Nonetheless, while it contains many great ideas and is clearly the result of a lot of hard work, I find the Draft Vision to be a deeply confused document. It reads like something assembled by a committee of committees, or more to the point, it tries to be all things to all people in a way that simply will not work.
First, it is much much more like a long term plan than a vision statement. A vision statement should be a concise statement of essential purposes and goals. Certainly the Draft Vision is anything but concise, and it doesn’t seem to me to just stick to the essentials either. Vision documents are meant to be inspiring at the levels of gut and heart. I don’t think that something this long, containing so much hackneyed business-speak, can ever be inspirational.
It is unclear for whom it is being written. Is it Congress? The general public? Employees of the refuge system? At one moment it seems to be one, at another moment another. If it is really a vision statement, then it should be written foremost for the people who are to implement the vision, and next for the _tiny_ portion of the general populace who might ever read it. But if that is the case, then why all the salesmanship for the refuge system? Surely 99.999% of the people who will even give it a serious scan are already convinced of the value of the refuge system, so why all the statements beginning with things like “While the refuge system has long been a leader in…”? Further, why the obsessive need to say, for just about every conceivable function, things along the line of “We will improve our ability and capacity to do X.”? No decent professional needs to be told about the value of incremental improvement in all aspects of the job, and anyone not so convinced isn’t going to be made so by a vision statement (let alone a quasi-long term plan).
It is also seriously confused in terms of goals, to the point of grandiosity. Is this the result of Refuges wanting to co-opt Ecological Services and ultimately the Service as a whole, or is it ES and the Service wanting to co-opt Refuges? On the face of it, it’s impossible to tell, but either way there is virtually no sense of the importance of organizational boundaries. No organization can ever significantly influence, let alone control, all the things that bear upon its mission. Unfortunately, the refuge system is going to have to rely a great deal on other individuals and organizations doing their job. My point is not that refuges should simply live in isolation with no outside contact. Obviously that is impossible. Nonetheless the level of influence on other organizations, communities, and even American culture proposed in the draft would be virtually impossible even in ideal circumstances, where refuges had all the resources necessary to keep their own houses in order. Under present conditions, and for the foreseeable future, the hope that the refuge system can have the kind of external exchange and influence proposed in the draft document is hopeless, at least if it is going to pay attention to the actual lands it is supposed to protect.
Which brings me to my final point. Even leaving aside cultural considerations, there is every reason to believe that overpopulation along with tightening fiscal constraints are going to mean grim times for refuge system for for the foreseeable future. I’m all for thriving and not just surviving, but sometimes all you can do is survive, and survival demands preparedness. While this is dealt with at times and in an oblique manner in the draft vision, I never got the slightest sense that this matter had been dealt with face on. Some superhero may come in at the last moment and save us from at least some of the perils ahead, but I see no reason to count on it. Achievement of this vision is completely dependent on the refuge system having the resources to provide adequate law enforcement, conduct broad and ongoing biological monitoring, expand their boundaries, _and_ develop and expand a myriad of outreach programs. There has never been a time when the refuge system had anything like all the resources necessary to do this. Is there any indication that it will in the foreseeable future? If not, isn’t it going to lead to disappointment when the vision proves to be fundamentally impossible to implement, no matter how much dedication is poured out?
The final vision statement–assuming that it continue to really be a kind of and indefinite long term plan–would have so much more of an air of reality about it if it contained some kind of plan that dealt with simple survival through the storms to come, and then a more ambitious plan for once the storms have cleared.
There is no thriving without first surviving, and surviving is not something to take for granted.
I have to agree with much of what Don has written here. The level of specificity of the recommendations seems to be all over the board & sometimes you can’t tell if they are intended to communicate a goal, objective, or strategy. Also, I know that the intention of this vision is to be BIG PICTURE but solving some long-standing organizational and administrative frustrations could also be considered bold. For example, individual refuges or refuge complexes still largely function as independent entities with limited attention to operating as a “system” and/or serving as a barometer of conservation status and trends across the larger contexts or spatial scales. And, there is significant inconsistency within the NWRS in how policies and programs are implemented across regions. What can be done about these issues?
Here are some supplemental comments on the draft document.
Given the uncertainty of the budget times it might make sense to craft several vision scenarios. These scenarios could be 1) the system receives a significant increase; 2) the system remains at about the same budget levels; and 3) the System receives a significant budget decrease.
I think that the document would be more well rounded if a bit more time was spent on the history of the Refuge System. I’m sure that there are many documents that could be borrowed from to complete this history.
Page 9, line 20: The Refuge System should work toward conservation and sustainability so that a small amount of energy needs to be used to achieve our conservation goals.
Page 16, line 20: The recommendation will require precious resources for training and perhaps more resources which the Refuge System is not likely to have.
Page 17, line 19: The recommendation should be preceded with an introductory clause, “Using an interdisciplinary approach.” Wildlife managers should be included as well as wildlife or fishery biologists and others.
Page 18, line 37: The Service’s Partner’s Program funding has been eliminated; choose a different example if there is one.
Page 22, line 13: We need to streamline the comprehensive conservation planning process so we don’t have to go through a major exercise every few years, and we don’t have to expend so many resources on this process.
Page 26, line 21: The Refuge System has long talked about data managers and data management. It is time to do something about a system where data is crammed in file drawers and on the personal computers of our biologists.
Page 29, lines 18 – 19: The model has been established that the recommendations are supported by the text. There is nothing in the text to support our staff becoming participants and leaders in professional societies.
Page 31, lines 18 – 31: This section should be reworked. The recommendation beginning on line 18 mentions only consumptive users. It should also mention non-consumptive user groups such as Audubon.
Page 31, line 33: The visit to our National Wildlife Refuges should start before the visitor arrives. The Refuge System should partner with nature film makers and other media types to highlight some of the wonders of nature that take place on our National Wildlife Refuges. Visitors can be informed as to where the events are taking place and that they are welcome to view them in person. There are many visitation guides but often only the paid attractions are highlighted; we need to be able to be included in these guides. This might be handled through the Regional Offices rather than the individual Refuges.
Page 32, lines 13 – 15: Our staff needs to be trained in the use of modern media to interact with visitors. Also our visitor center displays will need to be updated to incorporate the latest electronic devices.
Page 33, lines 4 – 9: It seems reasonable that some of the visitor facilities are disability compliant whereas others such as some trails are not. Each Refuge should have a compliant Visitor Center and perhaps some trails, but it seems rather unnecessary that all trails be compliant.
Pages 34 and 35, line 29 and follows: This section needs to be carefully considered by an interdisciplinary task force. Relaxing the Appropriate Use Policy could result in significant adverse effects to wildlife.
Page 39, lines 26 – 28: It seems like much of this recommendation could be integrated into our existing RAPP report.
Page 44, line 23: We need to make sure that the majority of our Refuge System is decentralized. This is the way we keep in contact with the local people and we develop expertise on the Refuges.
Page 46, lines 1 – 3: We need to ensure that our managers and senior staff are trained in the latest media and communications systems.
Page 46, lines 15 – 18: There needs to be a consistency of funding from year to year so the staffs can remain relatively the same and build up an expertise on the Refuges.
Page 47, lines 35 – 37: This recommendation should also include anglers.
Page 48, lines 20 – 22: Ensure that departing employees are given adequate time to write a letter or report to their following employees. This should explain the job and the difficulties encountered. The WO can develop a format for this letter or report.
Page 51, lines 11 – 14: These individuals must have a love of what we do in the Refuge System; their minority or disability status should not get them a job in the Refuge System.
Page 56, line 12: This section should talk about that in remote areas where there is no nearby community to provide housing, the Refuge System should provide housing equivalent to and of equal cost with housing in the rural areas of that state. We cannot expect our people to produce good quality work on the job if they are worried about their families or home life. If the Refuge System is serious that our people are our most important resource, then steps will be taken to ensure that all employees are provided a decent home at a fair rental rate.
I thank the employees that spent so much time putting this together. You did an awesome job!
Re the “Wilderness Stewardship” Section under Chapter 3:
USFWS should speedily adopt the Wilderness Stewardship guidelines as it proposed in the Federal Register in 2001.
They were excellent, but somehow got shunted out of sight during the Bush years.
Bring them back and approve these guidelines formally, now, while the “window of time” (shortening) still favors this possibility.
In my previous submission on the Wilderness Stewardship section, I mistakenly entered my e-mail address in the box labeled “website.” So remove that from my prior submission.
The box labeled “mail” in your “Leave a Comment” form should have been instead labeled “e-mail”, to prevent such misunderstandings.
The draft vision document includes a great many ideas, directions and goals, many of which I support, and some of which I do not. However, for the most part, I want to direct my comments towards the overall function and structure of the document, as well as its primary focus.
One of my concerns is that the document straddles the line between a true vision document and a long term plan, and does so in a way that is confusing and muddled. Fulfilling the Promise did this also, but each of its sections began with a short, clear statement of organizational vision before launching into specific recommendations. The current document makes no such clear distinctions, which leaves the reader confused as to its purpose. As others have, I wonder why the strong vision statements articulated in the Promises document haven’t been merely tweaked as needed, rather than replaced wholesale. In any case, the vision needs to be clearly and concisely articulated, and should precede and form the basis for specific recommendations.
Once an overarching vision is articulated, specific recommendations need to be just that: specific. Some of the recommendations in the draft vision meet that standard, but others are not specific enough to be implemented effectively. In my opinion, some that fall in this category are: 3.1, 3.2, 3.7, 4.8, 4.18, 5.4. and especially 5.5.
Another concern is the language in the draft. Some sections have more than others, but all rely too much on jargon and cliché. Chapter 3 is particularly prone to use of language such as “framing research targets with assumption-driven priorities.” I also feel strongly that we should refrain from patting ourselves on the back too much in this document. Statements concerning the refuge system’s past leadership or overall excellence in various areas rings hollow to me. I believe we need to remember that actions speak louder than words in such matters.
All that said, my biggest concern with this document is its focus. There are two major aspects of its focus which I honestly find downright alarming. The first is the extreme emphasis on working beyond the boundaries of refuges. There is no doubt that there are important benefits to be gained by working with others within and outside the Service to build buffer areas around refuges which include “working lands” and corridors between them. It is also clear that climate change will make landscape-scale conservation even more important than it is today. My concern is that comparatively speaking, very little emphasis is placed on protecting, enhancing and restoring the habitats and wildlife populations within refuge boundaries. What is the point of buffers and connectivity if core refuge areas are allowed to degrade? An earlier commenter asked what is missing from this document. My reaction is “Refuges!” The document reads to a large extent like a Fish and Wildlife Service vision, not a Refuge System vision.
In some places, the document appears to assume that the refuge system should almost single-handedly accomplish landscape-scale conservation objectives. While there is language about working with partners, there are also recommendations such as those concerning Farm Bill programs. There are obvious benefits to landowners being educated about these programs, but is it the refuge system’s responsibility to do so directly? Doesn’t it make more sense to work with our Private Lands program partners whose job it already is to work with the Farm Bill? (I realize that in at least two regions the Private Lands program is housed within NWRS, and in those regions such a recommendation would make sense, however, this is not the specific context in which those recommendations – and others like them – seem to be made.)
The second aspect of the document’s focus which causes me great concern is that no serious consideration is given to planning for lean budget times. There seems to be a significant consensus that budgets are likely to be flat or declining for the foreseeable future. The combined effects of war, national debt, an aging population and other factors all push in this direction, yet the vast majority of the recommendations in the draft vision would require additional resources.
I do believe we should have a clear vision of what we would accomplish and how we hope to manage the lands entrusted to us given ample resources, but I also believe we need to take seriously the possibility that we may have some very hard times ahead. I would like to see a recommendation in this document that every region undertake serious planning for budget reductions at the 10%, 15%, and 25% level.
The combined effect of these two concerns brings me to my last overarching suggestion: that the recommendations in the final document be prioritized. Prioritization is an extremely difficult process, but given the budget realities facing the Service, it is extremely unlikely that we will be able to implement anything but a fraction of the recommendations in this document. I firmly believe that without such clear priorities, chaos will ensue as we try to “ride off in all directions at once”.
I will only touch very briefly on a couple of other issues. The first of those is that I believe we need to give other “Big 6” uses equal footing with hunting and fishing. Most other wildlife dependant uses are not compatible with hunting (few birders want to go out in the middle of duck season), and those users deserve equal consideration. Hunters and anglers are not the only constituency which will support refuges; just pick up any issue of Audubon Magazine to see how many references there are to National Wildlife Refuges.
Lastly, I believe we need to take more seriously the toll of ever-increasing administrative requirements. Although the document purports to discuss streamlining administrative requirements, it lacks specifics and completely ignores two factors which cannot be overlooked in any such discussion: the inadequacy of internet connectivity at many remote field stations, and the ever-increasing data collection and reporting mandates of the Department of Interior. While some aspects of this are beyond our control, we need to take a hard look at ways to minimize the impact to refuge operations system-wide.
My thanks to those who read this rather lengthy comment. I appreciate the openness of the process adopted for development of the draft vision, and I realize that following my recommendations would represent a rather fundamental restructuring of the current document. However, I also feel that this document is (or at least should be) important enough for us to do what it takes to get it right. Thanks for listening.
This document as a whole lacks any bold recommendations or approaches to conservation. It is a refinement of business as usual.
Page 20 Line 41 How was the number 10,000 volunteers derived? Is it based on acreage to be covered or a scientific formula? How does that goal fit with the reality that volunteers willing to work on the control of invasive species are being turned away by refuge managers because either the species being controlled or the location where the work is being done is not their highest priority? If you are asking for a gift of time and effort from volunteers accept what they offer and do not turn them away.
Page 26 Line 21 Insure that the management of collected data aids managers in performing their tasks and uses technology to reduce the work load rather than add an additional layer of reporting to the existing systems. Require that higher echelons of the system utilize the data recorded in the system to answer questions that they have, rather than continuing to go to the local refuges with data calls for information that exists within the repository of stored data and is as readily available to them as to the person or refuge that input it.
Page 27 Line 10 The inventory of flora and fauna on existing refuges is the most important driver in understanding the effects of a changing climate. Without detailed knowledge of what exists today and where it is located how can anyone say something “has changed?” The simple rebuttal to that would be “changed from what?” The monitoring of key or indicator species is not sufficient to accomplish this.
Page 31 Line 18 Working with the boating industry to “create outdoor recreation opportunities on refuges” is at odd with wildlife first. There are more than ample off refuge locations for jet skis and water skiers to engage in their pass times.
Page 33 Line 39 What is the science based rationale for constructing more refuges in urban areas absent the biological need for those refuges? At a time when funding is becoming more constrain purchasing high dollar urban tracts to replicate the role of the National Park System in providing a vacation experience is a waste of precious dollars.
Page 37 Line 10 A Friends Group at every refuge is not practical nor is it necessarily beneficial. What is the rationale for this?
Page 37 Line 20 Providing incentives to the staff to promote Friends Group growth is insufficient. Holding staff accountable for their actions in dealing with Friends and Volunteers is also a necessary piece of the equation. If a public use ranger is also the Friends Coordinator and the Volunteer Coordinator then the evaluation of their performance should include a measurement of the success of the friends and volunteer programs at that refuge. If the Friends and Volunteer programs are stagnant or failing they are probably the reason why.
Page 37 Line 27 The 100,000 number is arbitrary and unfounded. There is a friends group that counts as members everyone who submits a request for information. Those members generate no volunteer hours or funding for the group. What is their benefit?
Page 44 Line 14 Insure that there is a single path for the flow of directives and information. Parallel paths lead to confusion, conflicting priorities and torn loyalties. Eliminate LCC’s as duplicative lines of control and authority and a waste of scarce funds.
Page 46 Line 20 This is nothing more than another inspection that will require time and effort to prepare for and take time away from needed field work. The Regional Supervisors should already know what their refuges are doing and if they are in compliance. That is a supervisor’s job.
Chapter 6 Encourage innovation and bold actions. Allow leaders to fail without terminating their careers if the reason for the failure is not incompetence or negligence. The absence of this leads to bureaucrats that follow regulations and past practices because they are safe and it stifles creative and innovative solutions to complex problems.
Roger, a wonderful summary of what refuges are and what they should continue to be. I hope your language makes it to the final.
Thanks Don for commenting on Rogers post, or I’d have missed it. Roger, I agree with Don. What you have written here encapsulates what an introduction should emulate, including length. It stirs my emotions, evokes commitment as an employee, and drives me to want to read more. The current values of the National Wildlife Refuge System are something we should be shouting from the rooftops in the new vision.
At its core The National Wildlife Refuge System of 2053 provides areas large, connected and representative enough to sustain the integrity, diversity and health of the ecological system needed to sustain viable populations of America’s birds as well as its threatened and endangered species. It is the anchor of a larger “National Conservation Estate” that includes examples of each of America’s ecological systems and the species found therein, across the full range of their geographical, geophysical and ecological range.