The ecological crisis of the Dust Bowl in the 1930s caused a dramatic change in conservation strategies. In response to the impacts of massive soil erosion, new agricultural techniques were developed to conserve soil and water. These strategies and techniques had great implications for other conservation programs that would restore land health. In 1933, Aldo Leopold incorporated these new conservation paradigms into his classic book, Game Management, and a new profession was born. Throughout the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corps reclaimed degraded lands through reforestation and creation of managed wetland impoundments on 35 refuges in 25 states.
Over the next few decades a wide array of wildlife and habitat management techniques were developed to address numerous ecological challenges. Sometimes a utilitarian approach to wildlife management missed underlying ecological principles that were not yet well understood. So, freshwater impoundments were developed in some coastal wetlands, and some bottomland hardwoods were cleared to grow agricultural crops to feed the ducks and geese.
Modern science has enhanced understanding of ecosystem functions and how they can inform wildlife and habitat management. 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.
The Service implemented a policy in 2001 that requires wildlife management to strive to mimic natural processes to protect: biological diversity at multiple scales; natural ecosystem functions; and clean water, air and soils on wildlife refuges. 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 and they require intensive management to meet their purposes. Techniques ranging from fire to flooding, and from farming to grazing, and maintaining wilderness character are used on different refuges in differing circumstances to accomplish policy goals.
Comment below and/or move on to next section of Chapter 2- Managing Refuges to Support Ecological Resilience and Climate Adaptation
5 Comments in this post »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Restoration, biodiversity and balance should be discussed in the context of native plants and animals. Predators are important to this diversity and should be part of every discussion about biodiversity, including in states where coyotes, bears and lions are very seldom found.
Please consider a discussion of new and innovative ways to combat invasive plant species, and a commitment of the funding to follow through. The discussion should include regulations that restrict sales of ornamentals when necessary.
Because so many natural systems are degraded, emphasis should be placed on restoration of habitats and processes. As stress increases on natural systems with inceasing human population, restoration of what has already been lost becomes more important. The NWRS must receive the funding support necessary to be successful.
Emphasis on native plant and animal diversity cannot be understated. We need to protect and restore where possible as much of the native diversity as can be allowed to take hold.
The policy striving to mimic the natural processes, is one of the most important reasons for National Wildlife Refuges, besides protection of the natural habitat. What is overlooked in maintaining biological integrity on Refuges is allowing States to manage sport hunting. Sport hunters are typically required to take male animals and sport hunters want the largest trophies. States are rewarded to sell as many licenses as possible by the USFWS allocation of Pitman- Roberts funds. States receive 3 dollars for every 1 dollar in licenses that are sold. States like Alaska, rely almost entirely on license, and P&R funds for budget. States that are unfunded by general funds will press the harvest envelope on big game species, to achieve budget.
High harvest by sport hunting will target the largest phenotypic animals first, and continue to cull the strongest individuals. High harvest will then will erode the sex ratios many times below minimum biological thresholds. Alaska has had several caribou and moose populations experience serious declines. Wildlife Refuge lands are subject to high use also by sport hunting under State regulations. In many instances the genetic integrity wildlife populations has had significant degradation.
I suggest two things that the USFWS should do in this document:
1) Review all current and future wildlife populations on the National Wildlife Refuge Lands for population health. Using scientific principles of wildlife management, populations should have healthy male: female sex ratios, and the populations should continue to express the natural phenotypic makeup. If State regulations are not in compliance with the Congressional statutory mandates in the units enabling legislation, or in violation of the USFWS policy to that effect, then the Refuge manager shall initiate a process to reduce or eliminate State over harvest regulations. This is not optional, this is mandated in Statute, to maintain healthy populations using recognized scientific principles.
2) The USFWS should take an objective look at the current P&R fund allocation system. The State of Alaska is only one of several States that do not, or insignificantly does not fund wildlife management. The Service should devise a system that allocates the P&R funds equitably to the States, but does not promote maximum license sales. A baseline average of P&R funds, for the last 3 years to each State could be used as a starting point. Land mass and other factors used also, but diverging away from the current system that is detrimental to wildlife populations over use, and biological integrity.
In the context of global climate change, ecological restoration is a key activity that should be supported in this chapter. Discovering the tools and techniques to effectively reconstruct high quaility representations of native ecosystems to expand the borders of existing remnant natural communities, and to provide representations at key positions between these areas will help ensure that these systems survive in some essential way. Highly diverse and functioning, even if changing, ecosytems will provide habitat for species that otherwise will surely join the ranks of threatened and endangered species. We may not be able to ensure survival of all species, but a holistic approach provides more species more of a chance.