Managing fish and wildlife in wilderness

Download Managing fish and wildlife in wilderness

Post on 16-Jan-2015




3 download

Embed Size (px)


This is copied from the site listed in the power point. It is a good slide show on wildlife issues


<ul><li> 1. <ul><li>This document is contained within the Fish and Wildlife Management Toolbox on Since other related resources found in this toolbox may be of interest, you can visit this toolbox by visiting the following URL:;sec=fishwildlifemgmt. All toolboxes are products of the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center. </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>This slide show was copied from: . </li></ul> <p> 2. Managing Fish and Wildlife in Wilderness Peter Landres Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station </p> <ul><li>Is there a problem? </li></ul> <ul><li>Is there a question about state versus federal authority? </li></ul> <ul><li>What have the courts said? </li></ul> <ul><li>Has IAFWA helped? </li></ul> <p> 3. CONTEXT:What is Wilderness? </p> <ul><li>From the 1964 Wilderness Act, wilderness is: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li> Untrammeled (uncontrolled, not manipulated) </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li> Natural (primeval character and influence) </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li> Undeveloped (evidence of people is substantially unnoticeable) </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li> Outstanding opportunities for wilderness experiences (solitude or primitive recreation) </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Wilderness is managed: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li> for the use and enjoymentas wilderness </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <p>Wilderness is managed for ecological and social values 4. Arctic Wild, Crisler 1958 Great wilderness has two characteristics:remoteness and the presence of wild animals in something like pristine variety and numbers. Wilderness and the American Mind, Nash 1967 Etymologically, the term means wild-dor-ness, the place of wild beasts. Wildlife in Wilderness, Hendee and Schoenfeld, 1990 Wilderness without wildlife and wildlife without the freedom of wilderness are virtually unthinkable, their interdependency is so firmly established in our minds. CONTEXT:WildlifeandWilderness 5. CONTEXT:Need to Manage Wildlife </p> <ul><li><ul><li>Increasing use of all types </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Increasing region-wide threats and development on adjacent lands </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Increasing disruption of ecological processes and loss of species </li></ul></li></ul> <p> 6. Conflict over appropriate wildlife management activities -- vehicles, surveys, tagging, marking, installations,modifying habitat, introducing non-native species Aerial stocking a wilderness lake Spraying rotenone in a wilderness lake Is There a Problem Managing Wildlife in Wilderness? 7. Is There a Problem Managing Wildlife in Wilderness? Conflict between state and federal management goals -- sport versus other wildlife values Fish stocking impacts on Mountain Yellow-Legged frogs Stocking lakes with sport fish 8. Is There a Problem Managing Wildlife in Wilderness? Conflict between state and federal management goals -- sport versus wilderness values Fishless, unmanipulated lake ecosystems Recreational fishing opportunities 9. Is There a Problem Managing Wildlife in Wilderness? 10. Is There a Problem Managing Wildlife in Wilderness? 11. Is There a Problem Managing Wildlife in Wilderness? 12. What does Research Say About Impacts from Stocking Fish? Research has clearly shown: </p> <ul><li>Significant declines of native fish </li></ul> <ul><li>Significant declines of amphibians and salamanders </li></ul> <ul><li>Significant changes in phytoplankton, zooplankton, and invertebrates </li></ul> <ul><li>Significant changes in nutrient processes </li></ul> <p> 13. Frog abundance infishlesslakes is also reduced by introduced trout 14. In the Big Horn Crags, Introduced Fish Occupy Most Overwintering Sites 0 .5 1 Kilometers Breeding Sites Summer Habitats Overwintering Sites 15. Conflict Between State Wildlife and Federal Wilderness Managers </p> <ul><li>Examples </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Refusal to coordinate planned activities </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Refusal to cooperate or share data </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Lack of professionalism (us versus them) </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Lack of respect </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Stalling and stonewalling </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Intentional damage </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Litigation </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <p> 16. Reasons for This Conflict Between State and Federal Managers Differing agency mandates, policies, missions, cultures </p> <ul><li>Arizona Game and Fish Department </li></ul> <ul><li> To conserve, enhance, and restore Arizonas diverse wildlife resources and habitatthrough aggressive protection and management programs (Mission Statement) </li></ul> <ul><li>Forest Service Policy </li></ul> <ul><li> where a choice must be made between wilderness valuesor any other activity,preserving the wilderness resource is the overriding value .Economy, convenience, commercial value, and comfort are not standards of management or use of wilderness.(FSM Section 2320.6) </li></ul> <p> 17. Reasons for This Conflict Between State and Federal Managers Ambiguity, differences in interpreting federal laws Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish in the national forests. except as necessary to meet the minimum requirementsfor the administration of the areathere shall be no temporary roads, no use of motor vehiclesno structure or installation </p> <ul><li>1964 Wilderness Act </li></ul> <p> Management activities to maintain or restore fish and wildlife populations shall include the use of motorized vehiclesby the appropriate State agencies. </p> <ul><li>1994 California Desert Protection Act </li></ul> <p> 18. State versus Federal Authority </p> <ul><li>Federal agencies assert their authority under four different Constitutional Clauses </li></ul> <ul><li>-- Property:power to govern property </li></ul> <ul><li>-- Treaty:power to engage in treaties </li></ul> <ul><li>-- Commerce:power to regulate interstate commerce </li></ul> <ul><li>-- Supremacy:federal law governs if there is conflict </li></ul> <ul><li>States assert their authority under the 10 thAmendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Police Powers: </li></ul> <p> The powers not delegated to the United Statesare reserved to the states 19. Judicial Interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court </p> <ul><li>1896 --Geer v. Connecticut </li></ul> <ul><li>State authority preempts federal management of wildlife, and that the right to preserve game flows from the undoubted existence in the State of a Police Power. </li></ul> <p> 20. </p> <ul><li>1896 --Geer v. Connecticut </li></ul> <ul><li>1920 --Missouri v. Holland </li></ul> <ul><li>Upheld federal use of the Treaty Clause (the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act) and Supremacy Clause that federal law supercedes conflicting state law </li></ul> <p>Judicial Interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court 21. </p> <ul><li>1896 --Geer v. Connecticut </li></ul> <ul><li>1920 --Missouri v. Holland </li></ul> <ul><li>1928 --Hunt v. United States </li></ul> <ul><li>Upheld federal use of Property Clause to protect public land from resident wildlife (deer on the Kaibab NF) </li></ul> <p>Judicial Interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court 22. </p> <ul><li>1896 --Geer v. Connecticut </li></ul> <ul><li>1920 --Missouri v. Holland </li></ul> <ul><li>1928 --Hunt v. United States </li></ul> <ul><li>1976 --Kleppe v. New Mexico </li></ul> <ul><li>Upheld federal use of Property and Supremacy clauses to manage wildlife (burros), and that federal management of wildlife not limited to just protecting public land from damage as stated inHunt v. United States </li></ul> <p>Judicial Interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court 23. </p> <ul><li>1896 --Geer v. Connecticut </li></ul> <ul><li>1920 --Missouri v. Holland </li></ul> <ul><li>1928 --Hunt v. United States </li></ul> <ul><li>1976 --Kleppe v. New Mexico </li></ul> <ul><li>1979 --Hughes v. Oklahoma </li></ul> <ul><li>Upheld federal use of Commerce Clause to manage wildlife, and that Geer v. Connecticutwas decided relatively earlywe hold that time has revealed the error of the early resolution reached in that case, and accordinglyGeeris today overruled. </li></ul> <p>Judicial Interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court 24. Agreement with the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Agreement between the FS and BLM with IAFWA Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in Wilderness and Primitive Areas -- approved as FS and BLM policy in 1976 -- substantially revised in 1986 -- reaffirmed by the FS in 1995 25. Establishes non-binding guidelines that should serve as a framework for cooperation between state and federal agencies IAFWA Agreement Topics covered in the IAFWA Agreement </p> <ul><li>Fish and Wildlife research </li></ul> <ul><li>Facility development and habitat alteration </li></ul> <ul><li>Endangered and threatened species </li></ul> <ul><li>Fisheries management </li></ul> <ul><li>Wildlife management </li></ul> <ul><li>Visitor management </li></ul> <p> 26. IAFWA Agreement A Few Problems</p> <ul><li>No plan for resolving conflicts and differences of opinion </li></ul> <ul><li>Vague language (preserve the natural character, may be permitted, identified in the wilderness management plan, standard techniques of population sampling, mutual agreement) </li></ul> <ul><li>Defines indigenous as species of fish traditionally stocked before wilderness designation...if the species is likely to survive </li></ul> <p> 27. Status of the IAFWA Agreement </p> <ul><li>November 2000 reaffirmation by FS and BLM followed by formal review of successes and failures </li></ul> <ul><li>March 2002 proposed revision by FS and BLM Fisheries Program leaders(DOA to wilderness) </li></ul> <ul><li>February 2003 proposed addendum by FS,BLM, some states(DOA to IAFWA) </li></ul> <ul><li>Currently, unknown what will happen next or how known problems will be resolved </li></ul> <p> 28. Resolving These Conflicts Over Managing Wildlife in Wilderness Provide understanding about science, legislation, and judicial decisions that lets each side know their respective responsibilities and limits </p> <ul><li>Legislation does not give state agencies sole authority for managing wildlife in wilderness; doesnt resolve anything </li></ul> <ul><li>Supreme Court decisions(5) clearly support federal involvement in wildlife management decisions and activities </li></ul> <ul><li>Science clear and wide-ranging impacts to wilderness values from some wildlife management activities </li></ul> <p> 29. The Bottom Line: State and Federal agencies share authority for managing wildlife, therefore they must cooperate, communicate, and coordinate to sustain both wildlife and wilderness 30. An Example of Working Together Natural rockfall in the Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness, CA blocked listed summer steelhead migration to spawning grounds After clearing the rockfall </p>


View more >