Featherstone - an alternate point of view.

I posted this on the Prince William Conservation Alliance website in response to a comment titled Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Q&A. Its an alternate point of view. Since it never made it out of moderation, I thought I would re-post it here.

February 19, 2011 at 8:46 pm | #1 Reply | Quote
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I found this editorial on Featherstone to be interesting and compelling. While I am in favor of Alternative A, or “do nothing”, I find that Option B does take a measured approach to opening the refuge. That being said, I would like to comment on a couple of points:

1. We don’t really know what’s on Featherstone. While we have been doing bird surveys for a long time and have started plant surveys, there is still a lot of work to do. Opening Featherstone to the general public, hunters, and fisherman will permanently alter this ecosystem. Experience tells us that the refuge will slowly be developed to accommodate uses by the public over time. Those species that we know nothing about may simply disappear before we get to them.

2. The editorial states that Alternative A precludes inventorying the habitats and species declaring that, “Such assistance will not be available, if the refuge stays locked up.” This simply isn’t factual. Alternative A explicitly allows for approved research. I discussed this with the refuge manager. He advised that research proposed by qualified people or groups using sound science and methodologies would be allowed. Simply put, research is allowed under alternative A.

That Compatibility Determination is consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, which established 1) wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation, when determined to be compatible, are legitimate and appropriate public uses of the Refuge System and 2) these compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the Refuge System. That sounds like a Park.

The National Park System supports all of the above. I have two passes in my pocket: one for National Parks and one for the Refuge system. This is clearly duplication of effort. If the National Wildlife Refuge System wants to open refuges to the public for the purposes stated above, these refuges should be turned over to the National Park System to eliminate the duplication of effort and consolidate such things as administration, access management, staff, etc. Considering the budget alternatives under consideration, this is a very viable course of action.

It sounds like the US Fish and Wildlife Service is suffering from “mission creep”. It needs to decide if it is in the business of managing Refuge Systems to protect wildlife or managing parks to fulfill the public’s need for entertainment. If it is the latter, they should turn over refuges scheduled to be opened to the public to the National Park System or perhaps get out of the refuge business all together. We neither need nor can afford two National Park Systems. Frankly, they put their very existence at risk by suggesting such a course of action.