The states don’t manage the wildlife, at least not by themselves (and financial can’t, as has just been pointed out). That’s the point that seems to be fairly well agreed upon.
Part of “managing” includes the financial obligations of doing so.
Review of NWRs and Fish Hatcheries
- Thread starter SAJ-99
- Start date
The states don’t manage the wildlife, at least not by themselves (and financial can’t, as has just been pointed out). That’s the point that seems to be fairly well agreed upon.
Part of “managing” includes the financial obligations of doing so.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Read my post 34, slowly this time.Financial responsibility of managing trust= federal.
Privilege to exploit resource: state.
Gotcha
Justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
So, let's talk about shifting priorities on publicly managed lands for a minute.
If the initial purpose for establishing a federal protected area, while important at the time, is no longer as crucial, is it okay to shift the focus of that area to the management of current-day needs, or should the area be locked in to that original purpose?
Let's say an area (state, federal, who cares) was established with a legislative purpose of restoring elk populations. Yes, there was a time when elk were in trouble. But today, there are many places that have too many elk for the habitat to support. Should that area STILL be managed for elk, or is it okay to now manage it for say, Sage grouse because they are in steep decline.
I think this is relevant to the review that is going on right now with NWR's. It's an important question that people tend to land on one side of or the other, depending on whether they are traditionalists or pragmatists, whether they see laws as set in stone and static, or fluid and open to interpretation for the times. Be careful here, and think of the 2A when you ponder this question...
If the initial purpose for establishing a federal protected area, while important at the time, is no longer as crucial, is it okay to shift the focus of that area to the management of current-day needs, or should the area be locked in to that original purpose?
Let's say an area (state, federal, who cares) was established with a legislative purpose of restoring elk populations. Yes, there was a time when elk were in trouble. But today, there are many places that have too many elk for the habitat to support. Should that area STILL be managed for elk, or is it okay to now manage it for say, Sage grouse because they are in steep decline.
I think this is relevant to the review that is going on right now with NWR's. It's an important question that people tend to land on one side of or the other, depending on whether they are traditionalists or pragmatists, whether they see laws as set in stone and static, or fluid and open to interpretation for the times. Be careful here, and think of the 2A when you ponder this question...
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Factual info and logic cannot get through the firewall ... at any speed.
That was an interesting post @Justabirdwatcher- punctuated well by this part. I personally would say I take a more fluid viewpoint, but I get where you’re going with the 2A point you made.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I know, the law, facts, and healthy wildlife just get in the way of the desire for tags.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
It depends, does it not?
A NWR may have been established for waterfowl, but is now managed more for sage grouse. The actual difference is likely very little in terms of habitat. But staff allocation may shift to leks counts instead of nest counts.
But we have 2 sections of land locally that were purchased for elk habitat protection, it has a ski area on it. At the time, it was deemed to be compatible because the ski area only operates during the winter when the elk have migrated lower. But now the ski area "needs" to expand to summer use, and the state wants to transition it from being managed by the Dept of Fish and Wildlife to Natural Resources, where it can be managed for revenue generation and public recreation. There is a very good argument to be made that this is unacceptable.
It simply can't be black and white, one or the other. There are times to be a hardliner and times to compromise.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Sure, always. But those things should be done on a one-off basis, not by EO of every NWR. That’s how we know the stated intent is not the real intent.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
It’s narrow minded to think that because an action had the intended result, we should stop the action because problem is solved.
I’m not sure what you mean?
SAJ-99
Well-known member
See @Irrelevant post. Not you specifically but you keep referencing this as a “very complex and evolving issue”. But it isn’t. It is destroying wildlife habitat to make a dollar. No one is “rethinking” anything. It’s about running things through as fast as possible.
Given the current state of things, there is probably a lot of truth to that.
Goodfish
Well-known member
In addition there a quite a few legally mandated hatcheries that were allowed in compensation for not installing fish ladders during dam design.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
The Leavenworth one is to directly mitigate for chief Joseph dam. The tribes tready rights enforced the feds continued operation.
Goodfish
Well-known member
Yep—same with Orofino. Mandated for Dworshak dam construction and run by the Nez Perce tribe. There are another group of Idaho hatcheries in place because of the Hells Canyon dam complex blocking fish passage on the Snake.
Justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
Whew! Now you bring up a whole other debate about whether plentiful "game" populations are in fact, always good for the ecosystem.
How are we going to have time to cover all this? ha, ha.Similar threads
