Justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
Long promised NWR review is finally out...
- Thread starter Justabirdwatcher
- Start date
I've scanned the summary booklet and parts of the report itself. It looks pretty good.
Most important to me is that some of the folks with years of work in the Refuge system who have reached out to me think this effort was sincere and holds some promise.
Seems a lot of it is focused on trying to make do with the current resources budgeted for the USFWS. That's all fine, but such a huge loss of talent and experience in the agency over the last two years, I'm not sure the current resource level can accomplish some of the goals outlined in the report.
I would support increased funding for the agency to accomplish these tasks. Hopefully hunters and our orgs will press for that. Doing more with less is great, but I fear the folks charged with accomplishing these tasks will do a lot with a little, yet be blamed for "not doing enough" to satisfy the critics.
Looking forward to reading more of it. I'll admit to being a skeptic that it would be done with wildlife and conservation in mind. And yeah, the implementation will be the true measure of the document's value. Let's work to make sure the remaining folks at USFWS will have the freedom and resources to get it done.
Most important to me is that some of the folks with years of work in the Refuge system who have reached out to me think this effort was sincere and holds some promise.
Seems a lot of it is focused on trying to make do with the current resources budgeted for the USFWS. That's all fine, but such a huge loss of talent and experience in the agency over the last two years, I'm not sure the current resource level can accomplish some of the goals outlined in the report.
I would support increased funding for the agency to accomplish these tasks. Hopefully hunters and our orgs will press for that. Doing more with less is great, but I fear the folks charged with accomplishing these tasks will do a lot with a little, yet be blamed for "not doing enough" to satisfy the critics.
Looking forward to reading more of it. I'll admit to being a skeptic that it would be done with wildlife and conservation in mind. And yeah, the implementation will be the true measure of the document's value. Let's work to make sure the remaining folks at USFWS will have the freedom and resources to get it done.
Justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
Randy, there is a lot of good in the review and there are also some naive ideas and some backward thinking. But I do think it was an honest attempt, if not biased in favor of hunters and ag. The trouble with thinking that hunters and their allies will be the future of these and other public lands is that the % of the population that makes up these groups has been steadily shrinking for a long time now. It's basic business that if your customer base is shrinking, you need to pivot and find a way to appeal to new customers or else go extinct.
As for the remaining staff, the review hit the nail on the head about hiring generalists which have largely been lost. Stovepiping in all federal agencies has killed the generalist. Gone are the days when the same person was an administrator, a law enforcement officer, a maintenance person, a biologist, a firefighter and also provided programs and education. Under the current structure, most agencies now need six different people to do those jobs and except for the oldest of them, the folks that are left behind came in after the generalist days. So there will be a lag time moving ahead. If that comes to pass, things will be on better footing moving forward.
The "dance" that today's public land managers are faced with is to appeal to younger and new users while at the same time honoring the investment and heritage of those who built the system. Some would say "focus on the hunters and anglers and get back to the basics" but with those groups making up less than 10% of the population anymore, that's a short-sighted, wishful thinking approach that is unsustainable.
I have wondered for years if the model is just out of date. It worked back when more people were connected to the land through hunting and fishing, AND when more people had faith in the government to manage those lands, and expected free public services. But these days there are a lot of non-profits that are frankly kicking federal land manager's asses when it comes to providing conservation. They don't have the red tape, endless rules and laws and policies, ridiculous contracting guidelines and layer upon layer of people up the chain of command waiting to say "no" to every idea.
I've said for years that we've had three generations of Americans who grew up with heavily subsidized public lands and recreation facilities. The infrastructure that so many of us grew up using was paid for through the WPA, CCC and continued through the 1950's, largely without any fees or permits from the user. So people got used to just going and using roads, bridges, boardwalks, picnic areas, lodges, hunting blinds, fishing piers, etc. without having to pay a cent. It all just magically appeared and if it wasn't taken care to their liking or if they were ever asked to pay a fee, most of them would rail on about how their tax dollars paid for it all. It was generational entitlement and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Combine that with a typical outdoor user today (hiker, birdwatcher, bicyclist, paddler) who has never had to pay their own way, and it's a double-whammy. Those folks reject the idea of having to pay for conservation or public infrastructure because they are "non-consumptive."
I wish I had the answer but this is a complex problem. It's going to take a wholesale paradigm shift on the part of all Americans who use the outdoors, to fix it.
As for the remaining staff, the review hit the nail on the head about hiring generalists which have largely been lost. Stovepiping in all federal agencies has killed the generalist. Gone are the days when the same person was an administrator, a law enforcement officer, a maintenance person, a biologist, a firefighter and also provided programs and education. Under the current structure, most agencies now need six different people to do those jobs and except for the oldest of them, the folks that are left behind came in after the generalist days. So there will be a lag time moving ahead. If that comes to pass, things will be on better footing moving forward.
The "dance" that today's public land managers are faced with is to appeal to younger and new users while at the same time honoring the investment and heritage of those who built the system. Some would say "focus on the hunters and anglers and get back to the basics" but with those groups making up less than 10% of the population anymore, that's a short-sighted, wishful thinking approach that is unsustainable.
I have wondered for years if the model is just out of date. It worked back when more people were connected to the land through hunting and fishing, AND when more people had faith in the government to manage those lands, and expected free public services. But these days there are a lot of non-profits that are frankly kicking federal land manager's asses when it comes to providing conservation. They don't have the red tape, endless rules and laws and policies, ridiculous contracting guidelines and layer upon layer of people up the chain of command waiting to say "no" to every idea.
I've said for years that we've had three generations of Americans who grew up with heavily subsidized public lands and recreation facilities. The infrastructure that so many of us grew up using was paid for through the WPA, CCC and continued through the 1950's, largely without any fees or permits from the user. So people got used to just going and using roads, bridges, boardwalks, picnic areas, lodges, hunting blinds, fishing piers, etc. without having to pay a cent. It all just magically appeared and if it wasn't taken care to their liking or if they were ever asked to pay a fee, most of them would rail on about how their tax dollars paid for it all. It was generational entitlement and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Combine that with a typical outdoor user today (hiker, birdwatcher, bicyclist, paddler) who has never had to pay their own way, and it's a double-whammy. Those folks reject the idea of having to pay for conservation or public infrastructure because they are "non-consumptive."
I wish I had the answer but this is a complex problem. It's going to take a wholesale paradigm shift on the part of all Americans who use the outdoors, to fix it.
Justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
I'll add that maybe the very real risk of losing some of our public lands is exactly the wake up call that some users needed. Time will tell. If anyone can figure out a way to get every American to recognize the benefits of our public lands and contribute their share, they should have Yellowstone named after them. LOL
