Sections of Chapter 1: Introduction
- A Changing America
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
The course of American conservation changed dramatically as the 20th century dawned, when Paul Kroegel – appalled by the slaughter of brown pelicans for their fashionable feathers – decided to take action. Kroegel was a German immigrant, boat builder, and citrus grower who lived across the Indian River Lagoon from a 5- acre island where the birds nested. The situation was urgent; the colonies were on the brink of destruction. He patrolled the island’s shores with his shotgun trying to safeguard the nesting birds. He talked to anyone who would listen, trying to rally support for the protection of the birds and this special place. He had the ear of some prominent ornithologists and they knew another man with a passionate interest in birds, the young President Theodore Roosevelt.
In a story that would be repeated many times over the next century and beyond, the passionate advocacy of a single citizen responding to an urgent conservation need was successful. On March 14, 1903 President Roosevelt established Pelican Island as the first national wildlife refuge.
He also established our nation’s first waterfowl refuge, Lower Klamath, in 1908. Spurred by the organization that he co-founded, the Boone and Crockett Club, Roosevelt also made sure the early Refuge System provided habitat and management for big game animals that had been depleted on public lands.
Over the course of his presidency, Roosevelt established 53 refuges, from Key West’s mangrove islands and sand flats to Flattery Rocks along the Washington Coast, where 150,000 pelagic birds nest and migrating birds sometimes swell the population to over one million. A new concept, protecting a system of wild lands for wildlife, was born.
Today, the Refuge System has evolved into the nation’s most extensive network of public lands and waters dedicated to the conservation of wildlife species and their habitat. Its 553 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts support at least 700 species of birds, 220 mammals, 250 reptiles and amphibians, more than 1,000 species of fish and countless invertebrates and plants. In an ever changing world, wildlife refuges have proven to be anchors for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation.
In America’s increasingly urban world, these islands of natural beauty offer Americans places to soothe or stir the soul, educate the mind and enjoy outdoor, wildlife-dependent recreation, including fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, birding and photography.
Refuges assist communities too in the restoration of millions of acres of depleted lands, relieving regional flooding by protecting wetlands, improving water quality, and helping private landowners utilize conservation protocols on their own lands. 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. The value of the Refuge System’s ecosystem services — such as improved soil and water quality in neighboring communities — has been estimated at almost $27 billion per year.
The conservation dream of 1903 is being fulfilled every day across the country. National wildlife refuges stretch from the southern Caribbean to the northernmost tip of Alaska and more than halfway to Japan. They range from small urban oases to remote Pacific Islands; former military ranges to Arctic estuaries; tropical lagoons to deserts, tundras, salt marshes, seashores and forests. At least twenty million acres are designated wilderness — natural areas undisturbed by human activity and allowed to remain truly wild places.
National wildlife refuges sustain nearly 300 of the nation’s more than 1,300 endangered or threatened species; 59 refuges were established specifically for endangered species. Refuges have been instrumental in the recovery of several species, including the bald eagle, Kirtland’s warbler, the brown pelican, Key deer and the American alligator.
Another 200 wildlife refuges were established to protect migratory birds. Many wildlife refuges along the four major north-south flyways hold festivals to celebrate the seasonal arrival of snow geese, tundra swans, sandhill cranes, shorebirds and songbirds; these refuge festivals provide a major economic boost to their communities. More than 3,000 waterfowl production areas — primarily in the Prairie Pothole regions of Minnesota and the Dakotas — offer habitat for a vast variety of waterfowl, shorebirds, grassland birds, plants and insects.
The Refuge System; however, does not operate in isolation. The Service cooperates closely with State fish and wildlife agencies in planning and administering the Refuge System. Both the Service and the State fish and wildlife agencies have authorities and responsibilities for management of fish and wildlife on national wildlife refuges. Effective conservation of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats depends on the professional relationship between managers at the State and Federal level. The Service acknowledges the unique expertise and role of State fish and wildlife agencies in the management of fish and wildlife.
The Refuge System also depends on the expertise of many partners in the conservation community including federal land management agencies, other federal conservation agencies, tribes, Friends organizations, and numerous non-governmental organizations with varying interests. Without these partners, the Refuge System would be unable to accomplish a great deal of its conservation work.
The Refuge System works to foster public understanding and appreciation of the natural world through wildlife-oriented recreation. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 gives priority to recreational activities that depend on wildlife: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education. Hunting is offered at more than 300 national wildlife refuges, and quality fishing is available on more than 270 wildlife refuges. Sometimes called America’s “first conservationists”, hunters and anglers have played a role in the conservation of the nation’s fish and wildlife resources since the late 19th century. They have been longtime partners of the Refuge System, and will continue to be so as long as there is a National Wildlife Refuge System. Fishing opportunities in the Refuge System represent virtually every type of sport fishing on the continent. From inconnu and grayling in remote Alaska to snook hovering by mangroves in Florida’s Ten Thousand Islands, national wildlife refuges offer anglers adventure and diversity.
The number of people engaged in wildlife observation on wildlife refuges – especially birding and photography – are on the rise. Every year, thousands of schoolchildren and their teachers visit national wildlife refuges to learn about conservation firsthand and discover the joy and mystery of the natural world. Through environmental education and interpretation, wildlife refuges nurture a sense of wonder in Americans of all ages. Wildlife refuges are also repositories of the nation’s archeological and cultural heritage, with protected historic sites on wildlife refuges offering visitors glimpses of life in other eras.
Comment below and/or move on to next section of Chapter 1 - A Changing America
35 Comments in this post »
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URL
1) might want to consider a more current quote @ the top, many know that TR was one of the early conservation greats and it is important to know our history and link to the past, BUT reference to fish and wildlife as public property is really not too forward thinking (kind of along the lines of Human Capital!)
2) need citations for this doc if we’re really trying to be more scientific, especially regarding the economic figures given.
I was glad to see our Waterfowl Production Areas mentioned in the introduction. They are often overlooked within the sytem. But I did not notice reference to another very important component: our marine national monuments added by President Bush. Those are huge areas in the Pacific whose importance we are only beginning to understand and appreciate. I was glad to see references elsewhere in the draft document – I merely think a reference here in the introduction would be appropriate.
I think a lot of people might not understand the subtle distinction between the USFWS National Refuge System and the US National Park Service’s mission. I believe habitat conservation and recreation are key with both agencies, and they probably make excellent partners to conserve land, where appropriate. It might be good to point this difference out for the average citizen.
I second that!
I totally 100% agree with you great post
The purpose of the NPS, according to the National Park Service Organic Act, is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein. The purpose of the Refuge Sytem, according to the Refuge Improvment Act, is the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats. There is overlap between these missions, but there are differences. Many of the posts on the Bold Ideas section of this website suggest many people do not recognize this distinction. Without directly sayinh so, many mistake the refuge mission with the park mission. While emphasizing the similarities is important, just as important to drawing a distinction between the agencies is highlighting the differences between their mandates. This is the place to draw that distinction.
When discussing our changing America, please consider purity of message. We are very often confused with other agencies because we broaden our goals fairly often and from the public’s perspective “blend” into other agencies. It would be wonderful to communicate a message that can be sustained through time.
It is important to communicate our goals and mission to diverse groups. We could do a much better job of reaching out to ethnic organizations within communities near refuges.
Regarding making wildlife relevant to citizen’s lives… It is important for land managers to live and work in the communities near refuges. Managers should be involved in community planning and education in a very direct way. Complexing has removed the land managers ability to make decisions on behalf of the refuge, with full and direct consideration of the communities needs and input. Communities do not understand complexing and do not care about it. They want to work with a neighbor. Because of this we appear to the public to be “top heavy” and removed from the relevence of the daily lives of people living within the communities near refuges.
In my experience the Appropriate Use Policy is currently being interpreted in ways that can support or deny uses on refuges. Please consider strengthening this policy to ensure that nature based experiences do not diminish protection of habitat and wildlife. Species and habitats are facing more stressors every day. I hope we will always have the courage to restrict or confine our use in favor or wildlife and wild places.
“We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning
to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later
in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;
and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.”
We should be managing for quality hunting experiences and agree with Cathy C “quality” needs to be added to text.
Line 43: I’m surprised that Hunting is just mentioned as “hunting” but “fishing” is listed as “quality fishing.” What does it mean to have quality fishing, and why don’t we expect quality hunting on refuges.
Grateful for all the feedback, thank you all for taking the time to provide your input to this document!
Most of the following contents are from an “editorial” perspective although I am not a professional editor.
Although I appreciate Teddy’s sentiment, I do not like the word “property” with respect to wildlife. I feel it belies an outdated conception of man’s relationship with nature, one that implies “dominion over”, “ownership of”, “commodity to exchange”, “something that is had—not something that is” (in a Gabriel Marcel-ian sense). I’m watching a California towhee jumping down off its perch on the backyard fence into the bit of native vegetation my wife and I have managed to cultivate in our backyard. I don’t relate to the bird as my (our) property, but rather as a another being (life form) that is trying to survive on our planet. And I’m happy it’s finding some habitat in our backyard.)
With respect to Roosevelt’s establishment of refuges for big game, we might make spectific mention of one such animal and refuge. Was it the pronged-horned antelope at Sheldon Hart?
I’m hoping that the 700 bird species which the NWRS supports is not an exagerration but based on scientific data.
The paragraph beginning “The Refuge System also depends on the expertise of many partners ….” can use some enhancement editing.
Which refuge was “instrumental” in the recovery of the brown pelican? Please bear with my ignorance.
I was under the impression that the large majority of refuges were established to protect migratory birds, which would be at least over 225 refuges. I presume someone has reviewed the “establishment purposes” of each of the 550+ refuges.
Punctuation in the 11th paragraph requires editing. “…refuge system;” should be “…refuge system,”.
I like adjectives. We might characterize the “role” of “hunters and anglers have played a role in the conservation” with some adjectives like, “unique” and/or “critical” and/or “special” and/or “remarkable” and/or “essential” and/or etc.
Revise “snook hovering by mangroves in Florida’s Ten Thousand Islands” to “snook hovering in the watery mangrove habitat of Florida’s Ten Thousands Islands” or some such re-wording.
Is there a way more direct to indicate that “From inconnu and grayling in remote Alaska” is referring to fish than by the reference to “anglers” later is the sentence?
Revise “Over the course of his presidency, Roosevelt established 53 refuges, from Key West’s mangrove islands and sand flats to Flattery Rocks along the Washington Coast, where 150,000 pelagic birds…” to specify also the wildlife which the Flattery Rocks conserve. I would love to see a reference to the Farallon NWR off the west coast but understand that it’s not far enough to the NW to complement the Flattery Rocks in the SE. Oh well.
The last sentence “Wildlife refuges are also repositories of the nation’s archeological and cultural heritage, with protected historic sites on wildlife refuges offering visitors glimpses of life in other eras.” needs some additional “oomph!!” The cultural and historic sites on NWRs with which I am familiar are special in the unique opportunity they provide in demonstrating human’s special relationship with wildlife and native habitat. Can we say something to this effect, and avoid sounding like this sentence is some “oh yeah, the refuges also protect cultural and historic sites….”?
The first part of the introduction is a good “overture” to the work as a whole. I would second comments by other commenters re the beginning and end:
First, I agree with Eric and Anon that quoting from TR is a challenge. Yes, he is revered generally and for his accomplishments in conservation and the NWR System. However, quoting TR looking at nature as “property” begins the vision on a jarring note for many 21st Century readers. An alternative quote for TR would be “Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it. The ages have been at work on it and man can only mar it.” (Grand Canyon Speech, May 6, 1903) I believe that a vision for this century may lie somewhere between these two poles – along the lines of Aldo Leopold: “When we see land as a community to which we belong, we treat it with respect.” (“Sand County Almanac”) So I would either deal directly with the two poles of thought, find another TR quote that is somewhere in the middle, find someone else’s quote, or start without the quote.
Second, I say ‘amen’ to Anon that the final reference to archeology and culture needs “oomph.” (Disclosure: I am an advocate of interpreting deep history in natural areas.) It is not only a matter of being “repositories” of or “protecting” what are called “historic sites,” but integrating human history (where it is relevant) into the narrative of the land and water, even calling attention to places (e.g., a farm field) that are not “sites” on a formalized historical inventory. Moreover, these places are valuable not only because they are “sites” or “provide glimpses of life in other eras,” but also because they illustrate where human life and livelihood became part of nature and probably continue to do so – directly and indirectly – in the present. My first take on a rewrite: “Wildlife refuges offer vivid and telling testimony to the heritage of people on the land – both transforming and becoming part of the environment. Whether [protected] historic sites or the nearly vanished places that once provided a livelihood, these locations on National Wild Refuges give the visitor insight into human experience on the land and its role in environmental change and continuity.”
From the very in depth research of TR refuges we did at Pelican Island NWR during the Centennial, we determined that TR established 54 national wildlife refuges during the course of his presidency. There remains arguments to the exact number, but you may want to verify your source for the number 53.
From my field experience, the general public does not understand what “wildlife dependent recreation” means. This is in-house terminology and I suggest it be replaced with something more understandable throughout the entire document.
In general, I still think the introduction is too wordy. Suggest 1 – 2 pages maximum or you are going to lose your readers if they have to read all this before the get to the meat.
Following reading the introduction and Chapter 4, I’m seeing somewhat of an inconsistency in some of the messaging. The introduction talks about how a growing number of people in America are becoming less connected with nature, yet in Chapter 4 it says that “the number of people interested in wildlife watching and learning is actually growing.” And again, in the introduction it says “America is becoming older” (really?, consider rewording), yet there are no recommendations to reach out to this group in Chapter 4, while youth is a major push.
Better to focus on a positive statement in the intro paragraph, i.e., perpetuating this Nation’s Natural Heritage to include land and water, the habitat of fish and wildlife. Drop the “beast” reference; use something more inclusive of wildlife and people’s experience.
Is Wilderness really “undisturbed by human activity.” Man’s passage through the landscape begs to differ.
Merry M’s 3/7 comments are right on re support of wildlife-related uses WHERE not detrimental to critters. FWS should not be so solicitous of the public use and support of NWRS lands that the overuse dilemma of the NPS diverts and squanders precious resources from wildlife related uses. In the latest “Refuge Update” we find concern for soundscape impacts and support for hiking. There is also something to be said for visualscape impacts as well. Generally birding from autos on the dikes at Forsythe has limited impact whereas foot traffic greatly displaces wildlife activity. This can be especially detrimental during the winter months – the period of greatest stress on wintering birds.
“In general, I still think the introduction is too wordy. Suggest 1 – 2 pages maximum or you are going to lose your readers if they have to read all this before the get to the meat.”
“1) might want to consider a more current quote @ the top, many know that TR was one of the early conservation greats and it is important to know our history and link to the past, BUT reference to fish and wildlife as public property is really not too forward thinking (kind of along the lines of Human Capital!)
2) need citations for this doc if we’re really trying to be more scientific, especially regarding the economic figures given.”
I agree with both of these comments from earlier post.
I also believe all of the comments are helpful.
Good start
John McCabe
Wild beasts aren’t anyone’s property. Already said by others but cannot be said enough.
I believe this section focuses too much on communications and outreach and not enough on social science and demographics. We need to put a lot more resources ($$, staff, partnerships) into understanding our publics before investing more resources into communications and outreach.
A refuge is a place of safety and that is much needed in America as wildlife is under siege. Hunting and fishing should not be allowed on refuges and wildlife is not anyones property. State and federal fish and wildlife services have been and are now not protecters of wildlife but prolific killers and accomplices to the killing of wildlife. I also don’t feel like witnessing our wildlife being murdered and my children and I being shot by hunters while visiting refuges.
Hunting in wildlife refuges is an oxymoron.
I believe we need hunting in refuges, it aides in conservation of other species. like if the deer population is to big in a refuge the deer will eat up all the plants or their favorite food source that some other species could depend on it effects the natural food chain. In most states we don’t have the top predators anymore to help control over population and the wildlife lands are getting smaller and smaller because of over building. So hunting on refuge is needed, but watched very closely bye the way I’m not a hunter never hunted a day in my life, and i don’t agree with sport hunting though thanks for listening.
We need to protect native species like mountain lions also to keep a balance that humans screw up. Humans do not have the right to kill everything, that seems to be most humans answer/ justification for killing everything. We do have a population problem -there are too many humans screwing everything up. And i do not believe there is a deer over population or that deer eat everything – again its humans -not deer, who are being called a cancer on the planet.
there is a deer over population problem in a lot of areas that’s why a lot of refuges allow hunting. but i do agree with you 100% humans are causing a lot we are the ones over populating this is not going to stop so we have to find a way to conserve what we do have left there isn’t any big predators left in most states its humans fault yes, but the damage is done. I don’t hunt i don’t believe in sport hunting i just think if there was hunting it would be more of a disaster then it is now.
Killing is not ok as it always seems to be the go to solution for most humans to everything !
I believe that we need classes that teaches kids and adults about wildlife, plants, and environment. This would help people understand nature and in return give them a new respect for are wildlife and nature in general. Wilderness survival school would be idea, for me as a child I started learning wilderness survival at the age of 13 it had a profound impact on my life It gave me the utmost respect for nature and, its all because my feet were closer to nature then most. So schools, and classes in are park system would do alot for wildlife and forestry conservation. Thanks for listening Jonathan Quinn
The purpose of the NPS, according to the National Park Service Organic Act, is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein. The purpose of the Refuge Sytem, according to the Refuge Improvment Act, is the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats. There is overlap between these missions, but there are differences. Many of the posts on the Bold Ideas section of this website suggest many people do not recognize this distinction. Without directly saying so, many mistake the refuge mission with the park mission. While emphasizing the similarities is important, just as important to drawing a distinction between the agencies is highlighting the differences between their mandates. This is the place to draw that distinction.
“slaughter of brown pelicans for their fashionable feathers”
(fashionable feathers sought may have been egret plumes rather than pelican feathers – could say… slaughter of brown pelicans, along with other nesting species like egrets, prized for their fashionable white plumes)
“On March 14, 1903 President Roosevelt established Pelican Island as the first national wildlife refuge.” (In 1908, he established our nation’s first waterfowl refuge, Lower Klamath, on the Oregon-California border.)
“Spurred by the organization that he co-founded, the Boone and Crockett Club, Roosevelt also made sure the early Refuge System provided habitat and management for big game animals that had been depleted” (across the west. He set aside ___ million acres of public lands and waters for posterity.)
NOTE: “depleted on public lands” (lands weren’t public until he designated them)
“allowed to remain truly wild places.” (Refuge lands provide a resilient foundation for the conservation of biological diversity nation-wide, which supports healthy, prosperous and sustainable communties.)
“The Refuge System also depends on the expertise of many partners in the conservation community including federal land management agencies, other federal conservation agencies, tribes,” (watershed boards, basin alliances, friends groups and non-government organizations. Wihout these partners…)
“Sometimes called America’s “first conservationists”, (Native Americans were the first conservationists, and their well documented land ethics and 10,000 years of sustaining native biological diversity, -while hunting, fishing, gathering and farming – proves it. More credit should be given to indigenous culture and thought, which supports wildlife conservation in non-material ways.
Utilitarian values are an important reason for refuge establishment and continued existence, but today and tomorrow, the deeper meaning and significance of refuges ties back to their role as nodes of biological diversity for regenerating healthy landscapes in a time of severe human-induced stress. Refuges are places where land ethics can be taught, appreciated and applied to greater society.
Teddy Roosevelt’s action in creating the Pelican Island NWR was visionary, but his quote reflects a chauvinistic attitude toward Nature that we need to abandon. Wildlife is not “property,” it is its own autonomous domain and should be acknowledged as such.
p3, L40-42: How about a place “to learn about our wild animals and fishes and where they live in the natural world”? What is written is all true but first and foremost refuges were created for wildlife. This paragraph seems to imply refuges were created to offer direct human benefit.
p 4, L11: should be “development”, not “activity”. Natural areas have had humans present since there were humans, nor is the wilderness designation meant to keep everyone out, lest they cause disturbance.
Killing is not ok as it always seems to be the go to solution for most humans.
I agree Tara, animals have a right to exist with out humans profiting from them or murdering them by hunting or so called” management “-that is really murder; : Finally there’s “animal damage control,” the government’s predator-killing program. In 1994 this program cost $55.9 million nationwide, of which roughly $22 million was spent on western livestock operations. The animals killed nationwide with this money included 163 black bears, 293 mountain lions, 1,928 bobcats, 8,973 foxes, and 85,571 coyotes. Presumably, such substantial government support of various kinds justifies holding ranchers accountable.”
The introductory statement about the State Asociation of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which apparently has too much influence on this process, is biased, leaving out the fact that these agencies often work against refuge purposes. They often work against maintaining natural ecological conditions so the numbers of game animals can be artificially increased. This often done at the expense of predators, other non-game animals, and those who wish to visit refuges for purposes other than hunting. The vision and all reuge policies and plans should explicitly state that the Fish and Wildlife Service has the responsibility to preempt state regulations and actions of state game departments whenever they conflict with refuge purposes and goals.
The Introduction is clear regarding the vast extent of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Recreational use of the Wildlife Refuges is very important. What is not clear regarding “hunting” and “fishing”, is that Alaskan Refuges have a rural subsistence priority on Refuge lands. Recreational sport hunting is allowed if resources are healthy and can support additional harvest. Alaska contains about 80 % of the lands in the National Wildlife System. Subsistence uses are not sport or recreational, but a significant part of local peoples lifeways. There is a need in this document to recognize that rural Alaskan residents obtain food on Refuge lands. The Refuge lands in Alaska are actually part of the homelands of many of the Alaska Natives that have lived on or near the Refuges for centuries. Subsistence use in Alaskan Refuges is and will continue to be a large part of Refuge management, and the rural lifestyle.
Regarding the statement “Every year, thousands of schoolchildren and their teachers visit national wildlife refuges…” — this has to be a gross understatement. I don’t have an idea of the total numbers, but just at Bosque del Apache NWR we have 2,000-3,000 school children per year. I imagine this is a fraction of what urban refuges have. I would recommend a more accurate number, or an even stronger statement could include the number of student use days, which would capture the impact of programs such as the Prairie Wetland Learning Center noted in Chapter 4.
Add a complete citation for the Roosevelt quote at the top.
Suggest that at each location throughout the document – the NWRS Improvement Act of 1997, be more appropriately referred to as the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended. The first such reference, in this section, could elaborate a bit more on the Improvement Act (amendment to the NWRSAA).