Download 4.1US Fish and Wildlife Service

Wildlife Management
Mid-Late 1800s
• Market hunting caused dramatic reductions
in some species and extinction of others
(passenger pigeon)
• States passed laws
– Licenses required
– Prohibited market hunting
– Set aside game refuges
Wildlife Management
Mid-Late 1800s
• Sportsman's groups actively assist in
conservation
– Hunting license proceeds used to protect game
species
– State Fish and Wildlife agencies are still funded
by license revenues
• But - still working to extirpate top predators
Fisheries Management
Mid-Late 1800s
• Depletion of Game Fish Populations
– Some limits placed on commercial harvest from
inland waters
• Hatcheries developed in 1870s – with
federal assistance
– Little attention paid to habitat, behavior,
survival of hatchery fish, genetic mixing
– Or additional harvest limits and habitat
protection
Fish and Wildlife Management
• Who should manage fish and wildlife – the
States or the Federal Government??
– 1870s-1890s – Supreme Court cases
– Resident fish and wildlife considered the
property of the state in which they reside
• Most hunting and fishing regulations set by states to
this day
• Enforcement action also mostly by states – even on
federal land
Fish and Wildlife Management
• Federal Role
– Could ban hunting (e.g. Yellowstone - 1894) and
regulate harvests on federal lands
– Responsible for managing migratory fish and wildlife
• USFWS Predecessor Agencies
– 1871 - Bureau of Fisheries in Dept of Commerce
– 1886 – Bureau of Biological Survey in Dept of
Agriculture
Federal Fish and Wildlife
Management
• 1900 – Lacey Act
– Prohibits interstate transport of game taken in
violation of state law
• Provides for federal assistance to states
ÄGave states a tool to end market hunting and
enforce harvest limits
Federal Fish and Wildlife
Management
• 1906 Antiquities Act
– President could withdraw federal lands for
refuges
• Pelican Island (1903)
• National Bison (1908) and Elk (1912) Ranges
Federal Fish and Wildlife
Management
• 1913-1934 – Migratory Bird Acts (3)
– Treaty-making powers for protecting migratory
waterfowl
– federal responsibility for hunting limits
– DOI authority to purchase land for wildlife/
waterfowl refuges and sanctuaries
– Federal Duck Stamp Program – “User Pays”
• About 2 million acres purchased with initial
proceeds
Federal Fish and Wildlife
Management
• 1934 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
– Federal agencies to evaluate effects of federal
projects on F&W and habitat
• e.g. Army Corps water projects
– Advise on mitigation and compensation actions
– Continues as major role of US FWS today
US Fish and Wildlife Service
• 1940 President Roosevelt Created Fish and
Wildlife Service
– Consolidates Bureaus of Fisheries and
Biological Survery in Department of the
Interior
• Mission
– Primary: migratory waterfowl management
– Also: hatcheries, coordination, and refuges
US Fish and Wildlife Service
• 1956 – Fish and Wildlife Act
– FWS given authority to consult in a wide
variety of actions, including technical
assistance to states
– “for the protection, conservation, and
advancement of fish and wildlife resources”
US Fish and Wildlife Service
• 1966 – National Refuge System Admin. Act
– Game and wildlife refuges, waterfowl
sanctuaries and management areas combined
into National Wildlife Refuge System
– But – no clear objectives for the entire system
• Each refuge still has own mandates
– Other “compatible uses” also allowed
– Many conflicts
US Fish and Wildlife Service
• National Refuge System
– Still growing – 77 million acres in AK (1980)
– Purpose have been further specified and a
national mission has been defined
• Theme: wildlife conservation in balance with
wildlife-oriented recreation and other compatible
human uses
– However - conflicts continue
• Still no whole system management
US Fish and Wildlife Service
• FWS is more than just a land management agency:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Refuge System
Hatchery operation and stocking assistance
Migratory Waterfowl – interstate and international
Technical and Financial Assistance to States
Coordination – “trustee” for F&W
Endangered Species Protection and Management
Endangered Species Act
1973 (Amended 1978)
• Endangered species a national concern –
responsibility of the FWS and NMFS
• Listing process for “threatened”and “endangered”
– Present or threatened destruction or modification of
habitat
– Overharvest
– Disease or predation
– Inadequacy of existing regulatory protection
– Other natural or human factors affecting the continued
existence of the species
Endangered Species Act
1973 (Amended 1978)
• All federal agencies required to act to restore
listed species and their habitat
– Generally prohibited any entity (federal, state, private)
from “taking” – killing, harming or harassing
• Emphasis on habitat protection, including
designation of critical habitat where ES are the
major concern
Endangered Species Act
• 109 on original list
– mostly charismatic megafauna
• Now adding mostly plants and invertebrates
• As of 9/1/03:
– 987 listed endangered species (217 threatened)
in US (plus 558 international species)
– Several thousand US candidate species
Endangered Species Act
Recovery Plans
• Recovery plans required for each listed
species
• Goal: restore to “viable, self-sustaining part
of their ecosystem”
• Recovery plans completed for 1003 US
species (priority based on degree of threat)
– Not all being fully implemented
– Species extinct before listed or plans complete
Endangered Species Act
• Effectiveness?
– More than “Emergency Room Conservation”
• Conserve habitat for multiple species (biodiversity)
– Adequate critical habitat designation
– Political will and commitment of resources
– Greater emphasis on active management
ÄLink to Ecosystem Management
Role of Science in ESA
• Originally, ESA protection based only on
scientific data
• 1978 - “God Squad” – set up to balance protection
with other interests
• Uncertainty in Decision-Making:
– How to clearly define:
• endangered, threatened
• viable populations
– Less certain and non-immediate factors are discounted
in listing and protection process
Role of Science
• Base decisions on science alone?
– Participation of scientists in political process?
– Policy-maker responsibilities?
• “Directed” or “Focused” research
– Problem with bias?
• Case-by-case decisions v. uniform listing criteria
– Flexibility v. potential for bias
• If ESA not as effective as hoped, whose fault is it?