Review of NWRs and Fish Hatcheries

[SAJ-99]

More bad news. Full review ordered. Sounds like they want shut some down.

The Trump administration says it will ‘review’ the nation’s wildlife refuges

The Trump administration said this week that it plans to “review” the nation’s wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) posted a directive on its website this week …

thehill.com

 

[Hunting Wife]

The Service has lost 20% of its staff this year. Perfect opportunity to start closing things.

 

[Big Fin]

Not sure who is pushing this effort. I have my concerns as to the motives behind it. Will be interesting to see what Nesvik and Coursey suggest; two Wyoming folks with strong ties to the hunting world.

 

[F250]

I am hoping this review will get some of the Refuges, at least from my prospective, back on track. One particular Refuge that I frequent, has lost it’s way. The Refuge land was purchased many decades ago with Duck Stamp money. The focus was always on waterfowl with duck banding, nest boxes, a dike system to manipulate water levels for maximum nesting effort, a strong law enforcement presence during the waterfowl season, biologists bag checks at boat launch sites, etc. Over the past decade all of those activities have stopped. Staff spends most of their time staring at a computer screen. The focus is on frogs, butterflies, and turtles .

 

[Hunting Wife]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but this review is most certainly not going to result in what you’re hoping.

 

[S.Dak Drifter]

USFWS has been forced to operate on skeleton crew budgets, it’s crushing over the long term to do more and more with less. Gotta have people to make the wheels turn ultimately. Having been a previous USFWS employee, I have witnessed the effects of shrinking staffing models over time- it is not good. I would not be surprised if some hatcheries are given to state or tribal entities to manage.

 

[marksjeep]

Org changes by 1/5 and actionable recommendations by 2/15? right.

The review has already been completed.

 

[brownbear932008]

Org changes by 1/5 and actionable recommendations by 2/15? right.

The review has already been completed.

Exactly they already know what they want or what who wants is probably more accurate.

 

[KMO385]

I'm sure the review is....or was conducted in a totally transparent manner using the best scientific and public data in no way shape or form influenced by any special interests. And it will the bigglyest high poll ratings ever out of any conservation decision ever in history of conservation......Not.

I know reviews are need from time to time to make sure things are on track, updating management goal etc. But one would think reviews like this are a political bomb that never turn out well. I fear that this "review" is just an experiment or trial run to chip away protections with ultimate goal of land sell offs.

 

[Straight Arrow]

It will be the most transparent and science based review ever known to mankind. Everyone in the world will envy what this administration is doing. Already rave applauds are coming from such places as Yemen, Sudan, and Provo. Not to get ahead of analysis, but it's expected that fewer wildlife will mean a richer life for the few that remain, as habitat will be less crowded and an overabundance of feed will fatten those remaining. Applying the unquestioned success and huge impact of the principles of DOGE which have never ever been seen before by mankind throughout history, the billions and billions of dollars saved and the exponentially improved efficiency of wildlife management will mark this review and subsequent actions as the most fabulous project ever conceived and executed by the human race on behalf of the remaining elite group of wildlife species. Make Animal-loving Groups Aware!

 

[cityslicker]

NYT has a story up today about a land swap with SpaceX at an NWR in Texas. They suspect this review is a precursor to other land swaps.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

I guess time will tell where this one goes.

As for refuge purposes, they aren't hard to look up. Federal Register has them all.

Now, the question as to whether the purpose of a 100 year old refuge should ever change, is an interesting debate topic. We all know that our wildlife conservation goals have changed over time, as populations either recover or become more rare. We also all know that the citizens of the US want different things than they wanted 100 years ago, and use public lands differently than they did 100 years ago. So there's that.

For a little more context on this review, a person could look up Director's Order 230 if they were really interested.

Requirements and Expectations – Review of the National Wildlife Refuge System and National Fish Hatchery System | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Director's Order No.: 230 Subject: Requirements and Expectations – Review of the National Wildlife Refuge System and National Fish Hatchery System Sec. 1 What is the background and purpose of this Order? a. The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS) are...

www.fws.gov

Also, pay attention to the language in the first point that reads: "look for refuges or hatcheries established for a purpose that no longer aligns with the mission." So, if this review is to weed out those places whose purpose no longer aligns with the mission of the USFWS, that's going to be pretty hard to do considering how broad the mission of the USFWS is. Again, here's the USFWS mission for those who are REALLY interested in this one:

"The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others
to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats
for the continuing benefit of the American people..."

So, a little homework assignment for anyone ready to get worked up about this one is to see if you can find a NWR whose establishing purpose does not fall under "conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats." I wish you luck.

I'm not saying there isn't reason for concern, but let's read the language and see where it takes us. If n'er do wells are going to lie cheat and steal, they aren't going to be worried about following rules or legal definitions since history has shown us (recently in fact) that they will make up their own to suit their needs.

 

[SAJ-99]

I guess time will tell where this one goes.

As for refuge purposes, they aren't hard to look up. Federal Register has them all.

Now, the question as to whether the purpose of a 100 year old refuge should ever change, is an interesting debate topic. We all know that our wildlife conservation goals have changed over time, as populations either recover or become more rare. We also all know that the citizens of the US want different things than they wanted 100 years ago, and use public lands differently than they did 100 years ago. So there's that.

For a little more context on this review, a person could look up Director's Order 230 if they were really interested.

Requirements and Expectations – Review of the National Wildlife Refuge System and National Fish Hatchery System | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Director's Order No.: 230 Subject: Requirements and Expectations – Review of the National Wildlife Refuge System and National Fish Hatchery System Sec. 1 What is the background and purpose of this Order? a. The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS) are...

www.fws.gov

Also, pay attention to the language in the first point that reads: "look for refuges or hatcheries established for a purpose that no longer aligns with the mission." So, if this review is to weed out those places whose purpose no longer aligns with the mission of the USFWS, that's going to be pretty hard to do considering how broad the mission of the USFWS is. Again, here's the USFWS mission for those who are REALLY interested in this one:

"The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others
to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats
for the continuing benefit of the American people..."

So, a little homework assignment for anyone ready to get worked up about this one is to see if you can find a NWR whose establishing purpose does not fall under "conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats." I wish you luck.

I'm not saying there isn't reason for concern, but let's read the language and see where it takes us. If n'er do wells are going to lie cheat and steal, they aren't going to be worried about following rules or legal definitions since history has shown us (recently in fact) that they will make up their own to suit their needs.

Take off the rose colored glasses. The have already canceled a multi billion $ grants for Columbia River salmon that will affect a number of hatcheries in this area. They want to cut these NWR costs and the USFWS funding in general. This is just another step toward that goal.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Take off the rose colored glasses. The have already canceled a multi billion $ grants for Columbia River salmon that will affect a number of hatcheries in this area. They want to cut these NWR costs and the USFWS funding in general. This is just another step toward that goal.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying if that's their intent, why bother going through this exercise. That's all. I mean, the last year proved nothing if not that the rules and laws are up to the person interpreting them these days.

I just thought some context would help here. A lot of folks don't even know what the Federal Register is, or how to find out the purpose or mission of agencies, much less the Director's Orders.

 

[Treeshark]

The have already canceled a multi billion $ grants for Columbia River salmon that will affect a number of hatcheries in this area.

Wildlife is a state resource- it was inappropriate for federal funding to be going towards that in the first place.

 

[TOGIE]

Wildlife is a state resource- it was inappropriate for federal funding to be going towards that in the first place.

*in your opinion

you too often forget that qualifier.

 

[Treeshark]

you too often forget that qualifier.

It seems to be an unnecessary disclaimer for a forum filled with posts of people’s opinions- it’s implied and universally (almost) understood.

 

[SAJ-99]

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying if that's their intent, why bother going through this exercise. That's all. I mean, the last year proved nothing if not that the rules and laws are up to the person interpreting them these days.

I just thought some context would help here. A lot of folks don't even know what the Federal Register is, or how to find out the purpose or mission of agencies, much less the Director's Orders.

Correct. You don’t need and EO to perform a review, unless the result might end up in a lawsuit. Then it provides cover, because of public comments and such. They don’t care about rules and laws, but they oddly still want to be able to justify things on the news channels, even if the explanation is nonsense.

Wildlife is a state resource- it was inappropriate for federal funding to be going towards that in the first place.

In this case the salmon are interstate commerce. Most of the hatcheries, or funding for them, can be tied back to treaties with tribes, and we know those mean nothing.

 

[Treeshark]

In this case the salmon are interstate commerce.

I agree. But also, wildlife is held in trust by the state (and therefore should be funded by them).

Who “owns” wildlife can be very complex, most certainly not black and white. Good illustration of a tricky and evolving issue.

 

[TOGIE]

It seems to be an unnecessary disclaimer for a forum filled with posts of people’s opinions- it’s implied and universally (almost) understood.

so you admit the supposed inappropriateness of the funding is your opinion and not an objective truth?