Regulations governing the Refuge System were created to safeguard the System’s integrity and are based on preventing excesses that occurred on wildlife refuges in the past. The Refuge System has developed strong policy on compatibility to assure that public uses of wildlife refuges do not interfere with their conservation purposes and assure a priority for wildlife dependent recreation. The Compatibility and Appropriate Refuge Use policies and regulations are powerful tools that have been critical to keeping wildlife refuges a place where wildlife come first. In the past, the Appropriate Refuge Use policy has been interpreted very conservatively. As the constituency of the Refuge System changes, the Service needs to interpret the Appropriate Refuge Use policy more flexibly. Some have questioned whether the current policy needs to be changed in order to provide a wider range of recreational opportunities that may draw new visitors.
Many people enjoy being outside whether it is to have a family picnic, ride a bike, or walk their dog. However, birders should not be frustrated by dogs running loose and barking, and anglers should not have to worry about jet skis disturbing the fish. The Service must be open to innovative ways to connect people to the natural world. The Refuge System has struggled with 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.
Recommendation: Review the Appropriate Use Policy to determine if policy barriers prevent appropriate nature-based experiences. Provide support and incentives for managers to be more expansive in their application of the Appropriate Refuge Use policy to welcome a wider variety of nature-based experiences.
Recommendation: Update Service policies that address the administration of specialized uses such as commercial guiding, recreation fee programs, commercial photography and other audio/visual programs to maintain consistency, integrity, and excellence in the expansion of recreational opportunities for the public.
Recommendation: Training on Compatibility and Appropriate Uses should be updated to provide managers with consistent guidance on considering a broader array of nature-based experiences on national wildlife refuges, monitoring use of wildlife refuges and reducing conflict between user groups.
Certain types of recreation – biking, hiking, birding, canoe trails – may not appear appropriate for a wildlife refuge if considered solely in the context of refuge planning. However, when they are one piece in a broader regional recreational plan that can significantly protect open spaces and connect people with nature, the Service must keep an open and cooperative attitude. If the Service expects others to be partners in its conservation priorities, it must understand its role as a potential partner in efforts that others lead.
Recommendation: Wildlife refuges must participate in regional recreation planning in order to both protect wildlife resources and reach a new generation of wildlife enthusiasts.
As demographics and values continue to shift in America, the Service must realize that interpreting the Appropriate Refuge Use policy with flexibility without compromising a commitment to wildlife conservation will engage new users and is a necessary part of securing national support for the agency’s mission.
Comment below and/or move on to next section of Chapter 4 - A Sense of Place, a Sense of Community
11 Comments in this post »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
I agree that the uses mentioned have been a struggle. So true. Here is a good opportunity to put some science into the Refuge System — not just into biology, but into visitor services. Our visitor services choices, too, should be based in sound science. What does the current research have to say about how we disturb wildlife? (cars as blinds vs. pedestrians; dogs; canoeing)
In my experience, leashed or not, dogs are very disturbing to wildlife on refuge lands as wildlife perceives them as a threat. Some dogs are not friendly and can be a public safety issue, even if only perceived that way by frightened visitors. Canoeing is quiet but also disturbing because of its intimate nature. Yes, I have a dog and a canoe. I am not personally opposed to these activities.
Many of the activities mentioned are not wildlife-dependent and can be done in other places, not specifically wildlife refuges. I love refuges because they are not parks. We need parks, too, but we also need places where wildlife comes first. Even many parks do not allow roller-blading and dogs. I would rather see a conservative interpretation and application of the Appropriate Refuge Use policy than a liberal one.
I agree that we need to be very careful here. A wildlife refuge with lots of people but no wildlife isn’t much of a wildlife refuge.
On the other hand, currently many refuges allow hunting, which seems to be about the worst thing you can do to wildlife (and I am not alone in that perception). In fact the first refuge I visited turned out to be a big disappointment because we could not even go in– the refuge was closed to everyone except hunters. I could not believe that the “refuge” seemed to be a place to attract birds so people could kill them. It was a long time before I returned.
So the casual visitor comes to a refuge with their dog, canoe or bike and has to leave because those are not allowed because they may disturb the wildlife. In the distance they see and hear people blasting birds out of the sky, which IS allowed, even encouraged, yet is supposedly NOT disturbing the wildlife? Yeah right.
I have also talked with people who think they have a right to hunt on any refuge, and that all refuges were purchased with duck stamps (which is not true for any of the refuges where I volunteer).
Anyway, it appears to most people that you are sending a mixed message, and very few people understand the thinking behind the refuge rules (or even have a clue what the rules are). But that is just a part of the lack of knowledge about refuges in general among the overall population.
I’d say you need to start in grade school teaching kids (and their parents) what refuges are and why they exist. I’m not sure how best to do that though.
Dave brings up some valid points and the confusion that this can cause in the publics eyes. A consideration may be to look at providing some sort of FAQ to visitors as to the role of Refuges, role of Volunteers or Friends groups, Role of Hunters both to refuges and in general, Reasons for limitations on some activities. I know much of this information is currently available on-line, but it can be spread across so many different Web-sites, Evolving with the public is inevitable as it is with anything, The public and our youth has evolved into using technology for just about eveything. Why no look at creating quick easy answers to common quesitons that are readily available. Maybe even look at working with Technology to create a Refuge system App that would allow users to have infomation about a refuge at their finger tips as they walked around, or even prior to attending.
Could even use the app for wildlife counts. Have visitors use the app like a game. where they identify the wildlife, then register # seen and where on the refuge.
This is the wrong direction for the Refuge System. Ever since the Improvement Act in 1997– broadening and expanding refuge visitation has become a major focus. The result has been more refuges opened to public use, increasing visitation to refuges, construction of additional facilities, and greater maintenance and staffing needs in the face of smaller budgets. The outcome has been uninformed decisions to allow public uses to continue and to increase without any determination of what amount or level of use is compatible. As a threshold determination– defining the amount or level of public use allowed to occur is the reason for completing a compabitlity determination and the Service should expect and demand refuges and refuge managers apply the same scientific standards when measuring, monitoring, and managing recreation resources and public uses as they do when managing biological resources.
All of this has detracted from the Refuge System mission and has occurred at the expense (literally) of wildlife management, biology, habitat restoration, and other priority purposes for the system. Too often uses are found compatible without any refuge specific data or information about amounts of use, impacts from those uses, or the total cost of administering those uses.
The Service needs to educate the public about the importance of refuges as refuges– not as recreation areas. Visiting a refuge should be viewed by the public as a special opportunity and each visitor should enter a refuge to engage in an activity dependent upon the fish, wildlife, plants and habitats of that refuge and should leave a refuge appreciating the uniqueness of those public use opportunities in the context of the higher priority purposes for that indivdual refuge. This may mean narrowing the focus of refuge uses and/or limiting all types of visitation to refuges– not increasing or promoting visitation.
The question of what is an appropriate “nature-based” experience already may be an issue at some refuges (e.g., the impact of a long line of cars going down a nature drive). I believe that it would be helpful to look carefully at all uses (including proposed ones) to see whether they can take place with minimal impact to life and the land, if they need to be limited in some way (in space or time), and what can be done to reduce the human footprint (e.g., permeable paving).
I agree with Molly’s comments: Many of the activities mentioned are not wildlife-dependent and can be done in other places, not specifically wildlife refuges. I love refuges because they are not parks. We need parks, too, but we also need places where wildlife comes first. I like the idea that we can say no to uses so wildlife does come first.
The question of hunting is a broad one and touches on many elements but I think in one area a definitive stand can be taken. On our wilderness refuges, apex predators should be reintroduced where they don’t currently exist and hunting them should be banned.
By definition, an apex predator has no natural predators, and so, if it is being hunted by anything, it is being hunted by man. Man should never be the sole predator of any species on a wilderness refuge. We’re an anomaly that should always be voluntarily factored out of any wilderness refuge ecosystem if our involvement would violate the natural order. We’re too powerful. We’re like gods. Nature cannot cope with us. Any limits on our encroachment can only (and must) be self-imposed. Without question, since apex predators have no natural predators, they should not (in a wilderness refuge ecosystem) be preyed upon by the gods and their guns.
Generally, the reason apex predators are absent from any ecosystem is because man killed them all. Therefore we should put them back (at least into our wilderness refuges) and stop killing them (at least there) forever.
For the record, I’m a member of the NRA, own a handgun, and support human hunting of deer and other such wildlife in ecosystems where the natural apex predators have been removed and cannot pragmatically be restored. That word “pragmatically” is open to interpretation but I accept that restoring apex predators means vacating the area to a large extent, and where vacating an area simply isn’t going to happen, restoring apex predators can’t happen either, leaving the door open for human hunting of deer and other such wildlife. Nevertheless, if there is any place on Earth whose purpose (as designated by man) aligns with the general absence of human settlement, that place is a wilderness refuge, and there, at least there, let us reintroduce apex predators and let us stop killing them forever.
Bravo for recommendation #2 – updating the policies! I know it’s not as compelling as other recommendations, but there is a definite need to update policies that were written in a less complex time – especially for commercial uses, commercial photography, Audio-visual programs and other issues.
And I think reviewing the Appropriate Uses policies merits discussion – especially based on the strong opinions expressed here. While I too enjoy refuges because they are special places, we need to think about who ISN’T using refuges and why….
It is very important for our Refuge system to continually strive to provide the best environment for the wildlife entrusted to its care. However, many refuges are seasonally habitated and during those off seasons they should be willing to experiment with allowing mixed use groups onto the refuge. Time and time again the concern of getting people onto our refuge without them causing a detrimental impact is a major concern. But people will not care about the fate of this system unless they have access to it and learn to treasure it. By allowing different activities that are monitored you can easily control the human impact. For instance, horseback riding is rarely mentioned or encouraged but it is a huge sport ($40 billion dollar industry) and the bulk of this group are trail riders always looking for somewhere to ride. Most refuge systems have some type of road or trail established and could easily allow horsebacking riding when feasible. This group is used to paying access fees and this could be an incoming generating source. Teaming up with national organizations (i.e., United States Pony Club) could open up an entire younger generation to the refuge system and the value of its preservation and expansion.
There are so many ways to increase the mixed use of our refuge system while always keeping in mind the impact to the environment. Close off sensitive areas, allow access on a rotational basis or make it seasonally adjusted. Managers tend to be very possessive of their individual refuge and/or only like to allow access to it based on their preferred use. These are public lands and there is absolutely no reason why different activities can’t be allowed, especially if done on a trial basis, to determine their compatibility.
I applaud the diverse and passionate fears, concerns, comments, and recommendations and hopes for a vital NWRS and the land and wildlife it oversees voiced in submitted notes. Often programs of great value, such as education, are eliminated early in a restructuring effort when declining budgets threaten the existence of an organization. The views presented throughout this draft document confirm the importance of educating the American and world public who mentally and physically evaluate the relevance of national wildlife refuges by what they read and/or personally experience. Our staff of environmental education, public use and interpretive professionals are vital to researching, creating and presenting a critical connection with our natural resources – wildlife, habitats and the environments that sustain them, AND US – and create opportunities able to visit national wildlife refuges as well as for those who cannot. Education is an important tool to bring the NWRS to the public and through interpretation creates an environment that draws people to and directly involves them in the world of wildlife and the environment that surrounds us all. Use the resources we have and embrace their passion and dedication.
Wildlife dependent recreation is what makes the NWRS unique among the other land agencies. We need to create multiple opportunities for visitors to connect to our resources under this wildlife umbrella. Through these intellectual and emotional opportunities we allow visitors to connect their meanings to the resource. Only if the visitor then cares about the resource will their ultimately care for the resource.