A diverse group of exceptional volunteers and employees has been honored by the National Wildlife Refuge Association and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The annual awards recognize exceptional contributions toward protecting the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Don Hultman, refuge manager for the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, has been named Paul Kroegel Refuge Manager of the Year. Hultman manages 11 refuges along 261 miles of the Upper Mississippi River. Described as a
passionate communicator and talented leader, Hultman led a Comprehensive Conservation Plan process that included 46 public meetings attended by 4,500 people.
A local newspaper article at the time wrote that “the quiet, thoughtful Hultman has earned the respect of an anxious public, even among many who don’t support the proposed changes.”
The resulting plan approved in August 2006 ultimately won its own award. Hultman has also been involved in the Environmental Management program and he wrote the recently published Service Manual Policy Chapter on Refuge Mission, Goals and Purposes.
The Employee of the Year is William Giese, fire control officer at Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Maryland. Giese used his considerable knowledge, expertise and 34 years of experience to help protect the Little Blackwater River and the refuge from major development proposals. Giese works as a biologist, law enforcement officer and equipment operator. He developed partnerships with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Maryland Nutria Project, both of which were instrumental in eliminating the invasive nutria from Blackwater Refuge.
At Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in Mississippi, Marion Sansing has been named Volunteer of the Year. She serves as spokesperson for the Friends of Noxubee and also outdoor recreation planner at the refuge, where her husband is the manager. She partnered with Mississippi State University to develop a native plant garden, used print,radio and even billboard advertising to attract volunteers and visitors to Noxubee Refuge, started an annual photography contest and partnered with the National Wild Turkey Federation to host “Women in the Outdoors,” an opportunity for women to learn outdoor skills from expert instructors.
At San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex in Colorado, Refuge Manager Michael Blenden nominated the winner of this year’s Friends Group Award, the Friends of San Luis Valley Refuge. Blenden believes their work is particularly noteworthy because the group is small and operates a in a rural, “not particularly wealthy” community. Back in 2000, the group raised funds to build an observation trail at Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge, giving the public its first chance to observe wildlife from outside their cars. The Friends developed the annual Kids Crane Festival for National Wildlife Refuge Week, and hold monthly work days in the summer to paint, remove fences or noxious weeds, or do other tasks refugee staff doesn’t have time to complete. Blenden says the group has also played a strong advocacy role for refuges with the Texas
congressional delegation.
Taken from a National Wildlife Refuge Association Press Release
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
GROUP HAS VISION FOR THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
Everyone interested in the well being of our National Wildlife Refuge System should visit the web site of the Blue Goose Alliance (BGA) at: http://www.bluegoosealliance.org. Or, see the link under favorite web sites.
The Alliance's Mission: TO PROMOTE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SERVICE AS A SEPARATE AGENCY WITHIN THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
The BGA is a non-profit organization founded by concerned citizens, Friends of Refuges and former Fish and Wildlife Service employees. It welcomes new members to its Internet based organization. Procedures for joining can be found on the web site.
The purpose of the Blue Goose Alliance is to educate the American public-stakeholders in the National Wildlife Refuge System-about the organizational and physical needs of the Refuge System. These include the need to:
• Elevate the leadership and organizational stature of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
• Strengthen the infrastructure, management and integrity of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
• Establish maximum autonomy for the National Wildlife Refuge System, which is essential to enabling Refuges to effectively and efficiently conserve and manage precious wildlife and wildlands, and provide the public with the educational and recreational purposes defined for Refuges.
• The Alliance believes that a crucial step to ensure the future of Refuges is to gain "agency status" for the Refuge System.
Their dream follows.
The Blue Goose Alliance Has A Dream!
We see . . .
• A new, independent agency within the Department of the Interior called the National Wildlife Refuge Service. It has taken its rightful place alongside the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management, the two other land management agencies within the Interior Department.
• An agency that plans its own budget requests, receives its own budget appropriations, and administers its own operating budgets. It receives consideration by Congress equal to the other Federal land management agencies by submitting its own budget justifications for allocation of available funding and manpower.
• An agency of high integrity, strong esprit de corps, and good morale. It is led by competent and experienced managers at all levels who have had quality training in all the important disciplines of land management which must work together to deliver effective, legally mandated land management.
• An agency led by a Refuge Chief, a career professional who has risen through the ranks of National Wildlife Refuge Service and served in responsible positions that have provided experience and insight for directing a vibrant, modern, efficient, and streamlined organization that effectively performs its mission. We see an agency with a strong, demonstrated, and continuing commitment to train and equip its leadership for operational excellence, both for the present and future.
• An agency which attracts the best qualified young professionals because it is led by managers who maintain high employee morale through sound leadership, participative management, fair personnel practices, and demonstrated concern for the welfare of all its employees.
• A stable organization with a legislatively specified structure that operates as a simplified, direct line management organization, with only three supervisory decision points: Refuge Chief, Regional Manager, and Refuge Manager.
• An agency that is adequately staffed and funded to handle all aspects of its own administration, management and maintenance, one that is not compelled to compete with non-refuge priorities for needed support services. It is equipped to deal with all its own needs, including, personnel management, property management, procurement, engineering, realty services, public affairs, forest management, agricultural management, environmental education, public use management, and legal services.
• An agency that is recognized internationally for its careful stewardship of the most extensive network of outstanding fish and wildlife habitats in the world. We see an agency which provides effective and efficient administration for all 540 national wildlife refuges and 3,000-plus waterfowl production areas, and all other lands and waters entrusted to its care, including all designated wilderness, wild or scenic rivers, research natural areas, natural landmarks, historical sites, cultural resources, and other land and water habitats and natural resources thereon.
The National Wildlife Refuge System cannot realize this dream as a component of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency encumbered by numerous other responsibilities and priorities. It can become reality only when an act of Congress creates a bright, new, and stand-alone agency -- The National Wildlife Refuge Service.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES.... WHERE THE EXTRAORDINARY IS EVERY DAY!
Guest blogger Phil Morgan is a Fish and Wildlife Service retiree with a nearly four decades long career dedicated to the National Wildlife Refuge System. He is a founding member and Board Director of the Blue Goose Alliance.
The Alliance's Mission: TO PROMOTE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SERVICE AS A SEPARATE AGENCY WITHIN THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
The BGA is a non-profit organization founded by concerned citizens, Friends of Refuges and former Fish and Wildlife Service employees. It welcomes new members to its Internet based organization. Procedures for joining can be found on the web site.
The purpose of the Blue Goose Alliance is to educate the American public-stakeholders in the National Wildlife Refuge System-about the organizational and physical needs of the Refuge System. These include the need to:
• Elevate the leadership and organizational stature of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
• Strengthen the infrastructure, management and integrity of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
• Establish maximum autonomy for the National Wildlife Refuge System, which is essential to enabling Refuges to effectively and efficiently conserve and manage precious wildlife and wildlands, and provide the public with the educational and recreational purposes defined for Refuges.
• The Alliance believes that a crucial step to ensure the future of Refuges is to gain "agency status" for the Refuge System.
Their dream follows.
The Blue Goose Alliance Has A Dream!
We see . . .
• A new, independent agency within the Department of the Interior called the National Wildlife Refuge Service. It has taken its rightful place alongside the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management, the two other land management agencies within the Interior Department.
• An agency that plans its own budget requests, receives its own budget appropriations, and administers its own operating budgets. It receives consideration by Congress equal to the other Federal land management agencies by submitting its own budget justifications for allocation of available funding and manpower.
• An agency of high integrity, strong esprit de corps, and good morale. It is led by competent and experienced managers at all levels who have had quality training in all the important disciplines of land management which must work together to deliver effective, legally mandated land management.
• An agency led by a Refuge Chief, a career professional who has risen through the ranks of National Wildlife Refuge Service and served in responsible positions that have provided experience and insight for directing a vibrant, modern, efficient, and streamlined organization that effectively performs its mission. We see an agency with a strong, demonstrated, and continuing commitment to train and equip its leadership for operational excellence, both for the present and future.
• An agency which attracts the best qualified young professionals because it is led by managers who maintain high employee morale through sound leadership, participative management, fair personnel practices, and demonstrated concern for the welfare of all its employees.
• A stable organization with a legislatively specified structure that operates as a simplified, direct line management organization, with only three supervisory decision points: Refuge Chief, Regional Manager, and Refuge Manager.
• An agency that is adequately staffed and funded to handle all aspects of its own administration, management and maintenance, one that is not compelled to compete with non-refuge priorities for needed support services. It is equipped to deal with all its own needs, including, personnel management, property management, procurement, engineering, realty services, public affairs, forest management, agricultural management, environmental education, public use management, and legal services.
• An agency that is recognized internationally for its careful stewardship of the most extensive network of outstanding fish and wildlife habitats in the world. We see an agency which provides effective and efficient administration for all 540 national wildlife refuges and 3,000-plus waterfowl production areas, and all other lands and waters entrusted to its care, including all designated wilderness, wild or scenic rivers, research natural areas, natural landmarks, historical sites, cultural resources, and other land and water habitats and natural resources thereon.
The National Wildlife Refuge System cannot realize this dream as a component of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency encumbered by numerous other responsibilities and priorities. It can become reality only when an act of Congress creates a bright, new, and stand-alone agency -- The National Wildlife Refuge Service.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES.... WHERE THE EXTRAORDINARY IS EVERY DAY!
Guest blogger Phil Morgan is a Fish and Wildlife Service retiree with a nearly four decades long career dedicated to the National Wildlife Refuge System. He is a founding member and Board Director of the Blue Goose Alliance.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE MANAGERS EXPRESS CONCERNS
A survey of national wildlife refuge managers by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) indicates that wildlife refuge budget cuts are crippling conservation and compromising wildlife law enforcement and visitor safety.
According to the PEER survey, an overwhelming percentage of refuge managers are worried that the nation’s 100-year-old, 100 million acre system of wildlife refuges is in trouble. PEER received surveys back from more than half (52%) of the 337 managers overseeing the 545 refuges and 37 wetlands management areas across the country.
• More than nine in ten (94%) say the situation is deteriorating and that “base funding (salaries and fixed expenses) at my refuge is declining in real terms”;
• Nearly two in three (62%) conclude that the refuge system is not “currently accomplishing its missions.”
• More than two in three (72%) estimate that “staffing levels for my refuge fall [more than 25%] below its core requirements”;
• Two out of three (66%) agree that the practice of “complexing” or consolidating refuges “is leaving refuge units basically un-staffed.”
As one refuge manger wrote in the essay portion of the survey, “Erosion of staffing is killing us.” Another added. “Currently, the greatest factor negatively impacting our station is lack of funding.” Substantial percentages also claim these cuts are negatively affecting both visitor safety and protection of wildlife and habitats from poaching, excessive take and other law violations.
With little or no support staff, more than three in four (86%) managers estimate that they are able to spend less than half of their time doing “conservation work, as opposed to purely administrative tasks.”
The deteriorating fiscal situation appears to be fueling a growing pessimism amongst refuge staff:
• More than two in three (67%) are no longer “optimistic about the future of the refuge system.”
• A similar percentage (65%) rates morale as either poor or “at an all time low” (26%).”
• A strong majority (57%) lack “confidence in the current leadership of the Fish & Wildlife Service.”
• Not a single refuge manager registers strong confidence in agency leadership.
• There is growing sentiment in favor of removing the refuge system from the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS).
• Nearly half (43%) calling for creation of a separate agency.
• Significantly, two in three (66%) believe that resources “for my refuge are diverted to meet other (FWS) needs.”
The Blue Goose Alliance, a national non-profit conservation organization, concurs with the refuge managers calling for a separate agency. The Alliance mission is to create a National Wildlife Refuge Service. See its web site at: http://www.bluegoosealliance.org/
See the full results of the PEER refuge manager survey at:
http://www.peer.org/docs/nwr/07_5_2_survey.pdf
According to the PEER survey, an overwhelming percentage of refuge managers are worried that the nation’s 100-year-old, 100 million acre system of wildlife refuges is in trouble. PEER received surveys back from more than half (52%) of the 337 managers overseeing the 545 refuges and 37 wetlands management areas across the country.
• More than nine in ten (94%) say the situation is deteriorating and that “base funding (salaries and fixed expenses) at my refuge is declining in real terms”;
• Nearly two in three (62%) conclude that the refuge system is not “currently accomplishing its missions.”
• More than two in three (72%) estimate that “staffing levels for my refuge fall [more than 25%] below its core requirements”;
• Two out of three (66%) agree that the practice of “complexing” or consolidating refuges “is leaving refuge units basically un-staffed.”
As one refuge manger wrote in the essay portion of the survey, “Erosion of staffing is killing us.” Another added. “Currently, the greatest factor negatively impacting our station is lack of funding.” Substantial percentages also claim these cuts are negatively affecting both visitor safety and protection of wildlife and habitats from poaching, excessive take and other law violations.
With little or no support staff, more than three in four (86%) managers estimate that they are able to spend less than half of their time doing “conservation work, as opposed to purely administrative tasks.”
The deteriorating fiscal situation appears to be fueling a growing pessimism amongst refuge staff:
• More than two in three (67%) are no longer “optimistic about the future of the refuge system.”
• A similar percentage (65%) rates morale as either poor or “at an all time low” (26%).”
• A strong majority (57%) lack “confidence in the current leadership of the Fish & Wildlife Service.”
• Not a single refuge manager registers strong confidence in agency leadership.
• There is growing sentiment in favor of removing the refuge system from the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS).
• Nearly half (43%) calling for creation of a separate agency.
• Significantly, two in three (66%) believe that resources “for my refuge are diverted to meet other (FWS) needs.”
The Blue Goose Alliance, a national non-profit conservation organization, concurs with the refuge managers calling for a separate agency. The Alliance mission is to create a National Wildlife Refuge Service. See its web site at: http://www.bluegoosealliance.org/
See the full results of the PEER refuge manager survey at:
http://www.peer.org/docs/nwr/07_5_2_survey.pdf
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FUNDING CRISIS
After six years of trying to roll back environmental regulations, ignoring global warming, rewriting the Endangered Species Act and increasing oil drilling in sensitive wild areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Bush Administration is now reducing the operations of the natural resource management agencies. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Bush Administration weren’t trying to weaken the natural resource agencies before the Bush political appointees go out of office in two years.
Getting hit particularly hard is the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). In recent weeks, the regional offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have released what they call Workforce Plans, which is an innocuous term for disastrous plans to reduce the already scant staffing on our national wildlife refuges from Alaska to Florida.
Because of the terrible cost of the war, other costly blunders and tax cuts there is no money to pay for the inflationary rises in the federal domestic programs. As an example, since fiscal year 2004, the Midwest Regional Refuge System budget has remained relatively static. At the same time, personnel costs have increased annually. Operational costs, such as fuel, equipment and other expenses have also increased. To offset these rising costs, the Midwest Region has already left 35 positions vacant and will reduce staff by an additional 36 positions -- to reach the total of 71 positions -- over the next three years.
The loss of these 71 positions is a 20% reduction in the size of the refuge field workforce, a loss that cannot be made up even with improved efficiencies and better collaboration between field stations. The refuge program staff in the Midwest Regional Office has similarly been reduced, downsizing by 12% between the years 2004 to 2006.
These losses have already impacted the Midwest Region’s refuge accomplishments, and further performance impacts are expected. Staffing of our national wildlife refuges has always been pretty thin. Budget shortfalls are not unusual in the history of the National Wildlife Refuge System, but always before the extreme dedication of the field staffs made up the differences. This time that isn’t going to happen since 20% of the staff people are not even going to be there. This will mean some refuges will not have any staff available, on others there will be less habitat managed for wildlife, less protection of wildlife and the people that use the refuges, less maintenance of facilities like hiking and bird watching trails, fewer wildlife interpretation programs and more days when visitor centers will be closed. If this disturbs you, please contact your U. S. Senators and Representatives and complain about the staff reductions on our national wildlife refuges.
To see how the other parts of the Refuge System are adjusting their programs to compensate for this funding crisis, go to the following blog sites.
Budget cuts, natural damage threaten Ding Darling_By News Blogger _Richard and Judy Schmonsky spent a morning this week walking Wildlife Drive at the JN "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge and got a huge kick out of the pelicans, raccoons and wading birds. But the biggest kick for the Albany, NY
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070306/NEWS0105/70306041/1007
Refuges in Pacific Region Face Funding Crisis_PR Newswire (press release) - New York,NY,USA_These cuts come on the heels of a crippling refuge budget backlog of over $2.5 billion. "Our national wildlife refuges are literally crumbling before our....
http://www.pr-inside.com/refuges-in-pacific-region-face-funding-r63360.htm
or
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-12-2007/0004544481&EDATE
You can help save ‘Ding’ refuge_The News-Press - Fort Myers,FL,USA_As one would expect, the people who run the JN “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge on Sanibel Island are meeting a series of crises by doing the right ..._
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070312/OPINION/70311027/1015
Jobs being cut at Texas, Oklahoma wildlife refuges_Times Record News - Wichita Falls,TX,USA_Arizona’s nine refuges include the 860000-acre Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, third-largest in the lower 48 states. http://www.timesrecordnews.com/trn/local_news/article/0,1891,TRN_5784_5406190,00.html
Getting hit particularly hard is the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). In recent weeks, the regional offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have released what they call Workforce Plans, which is an innocuous term for disastrous plans to reduce the already scant staffing on our national wildlife refuges from Alaska to Florida.
Because of the terrible cost of the war, other costly blunders and tax cuts there is no money to pay for the inflationary rises in the federal domestic programs. As an example, since fiscal year 2004, the Midwest Regional Refuge System budget has remained relatively static. At the same time, personnel costs have increased annually. Operational costs, such as fuel, equipment and other expenses have also increased. To offset these rising costs, the Midwest Region has already left 35 positions vacant and will reduce staff by an additional 36 positions -- to reach the total of 71 positions -- over the next three years.
The loss of these 71 positions is a 20% reduction in the size of the refuge field workforce, a loss that cannot be made up even with improved efficiencies and better collaboration between field stations. The refuge program staff in the Midwest Regional Office has similarly been reduced, downsizing by 12% between the years 2004 to 2006.
These losses have already impacted the Midwest Region’s refuge accomplishments, and further performance impacts are expected. Staffing of our national wildlife refuges has always been pretty thin. Budget shortfalls are not unusual in the history of the National Wildlife Refuge System, but always before the extreme dedication of the field staffs made up the differences. This time that isn’t going to happen since 20% of the staff people are not even going to be there. This will mean some refuges will not have any staff available, on others there will be less habitat managed for wildlife, less protection of wildlife and the people that use the refuges, less maintenance of facilities like hiking and bird watching trails, fewer wildlife interpretation programs and more days when visitor centers will be closed. If this disturbs you, please contact your U. S. Senators and Representatives and complain about the staff reductions on our national wildlife refuges.
To see how the other parts of the Refuge System are adjusting their programs to compensate for this funding crisis, go to the following blog sites.
Budget cuts, natural damage threaten Ding Darling_By News Blogger _Richard and Judy Schmonsky spent a morning this week walking Wildlife Drive at the JN "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge and got a huge kick out of the pelicans, raccoons and wading birds. But the biggest kick for the Albany, NY
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070306/NEWS0105/70306041/1007
Refuges in Pacific Region Face Funding Crisis_PR Newswire (press release) - New York,NY,USA_These cuts come on the heels of a crippling refuge budget backlog of over $2.5 billion. "Our national wildlife refuges are literally crumbling before our....
http://www.pr-inside.com/refuges-in-pacific-region-face-funding-r63360.htm
or
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-12-2007/0004544481&EDATE
You can help save ‘Ding’ refuge_The News-Press - Fort Myers,FL,USA_As one would expect, the people who run the JN “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge on Sanibel Island are meeting a series of crises by doing the right ..._
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070312/OPINION/70311027/1015
Jobs being cut at Texas, Oklahoma wildlife refuges_Times Record News - Wichita Falls,TX,USA_Arizona’s nine refuges include the 860000-acre Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, third-largest in the lower 48 states. http://www.timesrecordnews.com/trn/local_news/article/0,1891,TRN_5784_5406190,00.html
Monday, March 12, 2007
URGE YOUR U.S. REPRSENTATIVE TO INCREASE NWRS FUNDING
Problem:
The funding crisis facing the National Wildlife Refuge System is reaching a tipping point. Visitor's services are being curtailed at some refuges and many refuges are being de-staffed completely. But Congress can help - but they'll only do so if they hear from their constituents - YOU!
Solution:
Members of the House National Wildlife Refuge Caucus, Representatives RonKind (D-WI), Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Michael Castle (R-DE) are sending a letter to the House Interior and Environment appropriations subcommittee urging them to increase funding for the NWRS to $451.5 million for FY'08. This funding level will stabilize losses of staffing and programs so vital to ensuring the Refuge System's wildlife conservation mission. Without support from fellow members of Congress, the appropriators have little incentive to increase the budget on their own!
Action Needed:
Urge your U.S. Representative to sign onto the letter to House Interior & Environment appropriators currently being circulated. Your action is needed NOW - the deadline for signers is TUESDAY, MARCH 13TH!!
An easy way to send a letter to your U.S. Representative is to go to: http://www.refugenet.org/
then click on Refuge Action Network, then click on first news item.
You can follow up with a quick phone call to your Representative's office by calling the Capitol Switchboard at: 202-224-3121.
Please take action by Tuesday, March 13, 2007.
The funding crisis facing the National Wildlife Refuge System is reaching a tipping point. Visitor's services are being curtailed at some refuges and many refuges are being de-staffed completely. But Congress can help - but they'll only do so if they hear from their constituents - YOU!
Solution:
Members of the House National Wildlife Refuge Caucus, Representatives RonKind (D-WI), Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Michael Castle (R-DE) are sending a letter to the House Interior and Environment appropriations subcommittee urging them to increase funding for the NWRS to $451.5 million for FY'08. This funding level will stabilize losses of staffing and programs so vital to ensuring the Refuge System's wildlife conservation mission. Without support from fellow members of Congress, the appropriators have little incentive to increase the budget on their own!
Action Needed:
Urge your U.S. Representative to sign onto the letter to House Interior & Environment appropriators currently being circulated. Your action is needed NOW - the deadline for signers is TUESDAY, MARCH 13TH!!
An easy way to send a letter to your U.S. Representative is to go to: http://www.refugenet.org/
then click on Refuge Action Network, then click on first news item.
You can follow up with a quick phone call to your Representative's office by calling the Capitol Switchboard at: 202-224-3121.
Please take action by Tuesday, March 13, 2007.
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT BREWING AT NATIONAL BISON RANGE
The Bush politicos have created a stinking mess at the National Bison Range (NBR) near Moiese, Montana. In late 2004 and into 2005 the political appointees in the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) arranged for a major portion of the National Bison Range’s services and operations to be transferred to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) through an Annual Funding Agreement (AFA) between the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Tribes. The outcome was a disaster, resulting in the FWS Director Hall terminating the AFA on September 30, 2006 after it had been in operation at the refuge for about 18 months. But then Bush administration appointees at Interior, who oversee the FWS, overturned Hall's ruling 18 days later. Evidently, the politicos, such as James E. Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary of Interior, have accepted the CSKT explanations and have determined that a new AFA should be developed along the lines of the old one. Unbelievably, they are intending to give the CSKT even more responsibilities though the CSKT did not fulfill the terms of the first AFA.
The authority for AFAs is the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act. The original Bison Range AFA was negotiated with the Tribes by Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for fish and wildlife and parks, Paul Hoffman. Mr. Hoffman did this in near secrecy and many of the provisions in the AFA were reportedly developed by CSKT and accepted by DOI political appointees over objections by National Bison Range and Regional FWS personnel. Furthermore, it has been implied that all the management of the National Bison Range and nearby Pablo National Wildlife Refuge, Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuge, and several migratory bird wetland areas would eventually be removed from the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and transferred to the CSKT.
Under the terms of the AFA, the CSKT was to perform activities in five categories including management, the biological program, the fire and maintenance programs and visitor services. After a year or so of operation, the FWS did an evaluation of the CSKT’s performance under the terms of the AFA and found that CSKT failed to meet the requirements of the AFA in a number of ways. FWS Director, H. Dale Hall, then made a gutsy decision to cancel the AFA. Hall had received a letter from FWS Regional Director, Mitch King, saying King had come to the conclusion that joint operation of the range would not work. King cited unacceptable work performed by the tribes, concern for visitor safety and a hostile work environment created by CSKT's involvement.
This conclusion didn’t surprise the few conservation organizations that had opposed the original AFA as unworkable. Generally, opposing Indian endeavors is not a popular activity of the national non-profit conservation organizations as the tribes have money, a powerful lobby in Washington, D. C. and I have heard, some hold board directorships with a few of the national non-profit conservation organizations. And there is always the fear of being labeled prejudiced if they oppose Indian tribes on anything. So, there has been very little concerned expressed about this AFA by the conservation community except for two or three groups like the Blue Goose Alliance, the National Wildlife Refuge Association and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
Re-establishment of the AFA at the Bison Range will set a precedent and encourage attempts by other tribes for similar operational AFA arrangements at the other refuges eligible for inclusion in annual funding agreements (the current Federal Register list includes at least 31 National Wildlife Refuges containing more than 80% of the acreage of the Refuge System). Allowing this failure at NBR to become a prototype for more turnovers of refuges through the implementation of AFAs is a very dangerous precedent for the National Wildlife Refuge System, as it would destroy the System as it is now known. The finalizing of these types of AFAs by the Bush political appointees must be opposed.
The authority for AFAs is the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act. The original Bison Range AFA was negotiated with the Tribes by Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for fish and wildlife and parks, Paul Hoffman. Mr. Hoffman did this in near secrecy and many of the provisions in the AFA were reportedly developed by CSKT and accepted by DOI political appointees over objections by National Bison Range and Regional FWS personnel. Furthermore, it has been implied that all the management of the National Bison Range and nearby Pablo National Wildlife Refuge, Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuge, and several migratory bird wetland areas would eventually be removed from the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and transferred to the CSKT.
Under the terms of the AFA, the CSKT was to perform activities in five categories including management, the biological program, the fire and maintenance programs and visitor services. After a year or so of operation, the FWS did an evaluation of the CSKT’s performance under the terms of the AFA and found that CSKT failed to meet the requirements of the AFA in a number of ways. FWS Director, H. Dale Hall, then made a gutsy decision to cancel the AFA. Hall had received a letter from FWS Regional Director, Mitch King, saying King had come to the conclusion that joint operation of the range would not work. King cited unacceptable work performed by the tribes, concern for visitor safety and a hostile work environment created by CSKT's involvement.
This conclusion didn’t surprise the few conservation organizations that had opposed the original AFA as unworkable. Generally, opposing Indian endeavors is not a popular activity of the national non-profit conservation organizations as the tribes have money, a powerful lobby in Washington, D. C. and I have heard, some hold board directorships with a few of the national non-profit conservation organizations. And there is always the fear of being labeled prejudiced if they oppose Indian tribes on anything. So, there has been very little concerned expressed about this AFA by the conservation community except for two or three groups like the Blue Goose Alliance, the National Wildlife Refuge Association and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
Re-establishment of the AFA at the Bison Range will set a precedent and encourage attempts by other tribes for similar operational AFA arrangements at the other refuges eligible for inclusion in annual funding agreements (the current Federal Register list includes at least 31 National Wildlife Refuges containing more than 80% of the acreage of the Refuge System). Allowing this failure at NBR to become a prototype for more turnovers of refuges through the implementation of AFAs is a very dangerous precedent for the National Wildlife Refuge System, as it would destroy the System as it is now known. The finalizing of these types of AFAs by the Bush political appointees must be opposed.
INTRODUCTION & GUEST CONTRIBUTIONS
My blog entries are going to be homespun and sporadic, depending upon availability of information that I find in print media, online or what other people send to me, my mood of the day, week or month, and if there isn’t something better to do than sit at the computer and write.
__
If you want to submit a guest blog entry or want specific topics, events, or issues to be considered for discussion on this blog, you may submit them by sending an e-mail message to edcrozier@mac.com. Such messages will be held in confidence. If you wish, you will remain anonymous to the readers. However, to verify the authenticity of the submissions, please provide your name, position, address, phone number and the reason why the information should be used. Thank You. EC
__
If you want to submit a guest blog entry or want specific topics, events, or issues to be considered for discussion on this blog, you may submit them by sending an e-mail message to edcrozier@mac.com. Such messages will be held in confidence. If you wish, you will remain anonymous to the readers. However, to verify the authenticity of the submissions, please provide your name, position, address, phone number and the reason why the information should be used. Thank You. EC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)