Listen to the article
On December 16, Brian Nesvik, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), posted an order to all internal department staff to perform a “comprehensive review” of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS). The intent of this review is to identify “refuges or hatcheries established for a purpose that no longer aligns with the mission.” It also requests seeking “opportunities to achieve efficiencies in the areas of governance, oversight, and span of control,” among other factors.
While many see this review as a first step in liquidating public lands, others approve of it. Congressional Sportsmen Foundation (CSF) stated in a press release that, “CSF believes that it is valuable for FWS to conduct an audit of what is and is not working, and more importantly, an audit to determine how individual refuge management and the overarching Refuge and Hatchery Systems can best fulfill their goals of meeting the primary purpose(s) of each respective refuge.”
An initial summary of organizational change recommendations was due Monday, January 5. The timing and rollout of this directive speak volumes about its intentions. Issued the week before employees’ Christmas vacation, with a deadline of the Monday after that vacation, the order essentially gave no time to complete this review. The final detailed results of the review, along with actionable recommendations, are due February 15. The quick timeline may suggest that the administration already has refuges picked out for closure or overhaul.
Representative Jared Huffman questioned Nesvik on the order during the Committee of Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries oversight hearing titled “Hunting and Fishing Access in the Great American Outdoors,” on January 13.
Rep. Huffman began by inquiring about the specific criteria that will be used to determine if a refuge’s purpose no longer is in alignment with the USFWS mission.
“I gave the team broad latitude to look at the documents that were originally used to execute the acquisition of the refuge and to look at what those purposes were at the time the refuge was established,” Nesvik said. “Then evaluate that and make sure that the purpose is still the mission for that particular refuge and is still being executed. And then to compare it to the current priorities and objectives for the service.”
When asked if there was an example of a refuge that might be misaligned with current objectives to prompt this investigation, Nesvik failed to provide specifics.
“I don’t have any preconceived notions of a specific refuge or specific fish hatchery that doesn’t meet those [objectives], but I have had folks indicate to me that this is something worthy of looking at. And it makes sense to me, when you’re going to do a top-to-bottom audit of a system that is so large that it makes sense to look at the founding purpose.”
Huffman then brought up concerns about selling off public lands. “Can you assure us that this directive and this investigation are not going to result in the selling off of refuge lands?” He asked.
“The intention for this order is in no way trying to find lands to sell off. In any way.” Nesvik said.
However, when pressed on the matter of selling public lands, Nesvik responded by saying, “We oftentimes have exchanges of refuge lands for other lands that are alike for a similar trade that are authorized by Congress. Like value for like value.”
What could “like value for like value” look like? Well, according to the New York Times, officials at Fish and Wildlife might be planning to transfer 775 acres of the Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge to Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which has a rocket launch pad close by, in exchange for 692 acres somewhere else. Other land exchanges might advance plans, such as a road through Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Furthermore, Nesvik doesn’t seem to believe that we should be concerned about the sanctity of our public lands at all, particularly after a recent, vague order issued by Secretary Doug Burgum titled “Expanding Hunting and Fishing Access, Removing Unnecessary Barriers, and Ensuring Consistency Across the Department of the Interior Lands and Waters.”
“I don’t believe that anyone should be worried about what this administration is doing with public lands,” Nesvik concluded.
And yet, the Republican Study Committee just released its framework for a second reconciliation package, titled “Making the American Dream Affordable Again.” Within this document is a decree to “Direct relevant federal agencies to sell off or lease at a low rate underused and/or underutilized federal properties to expand access to affordable private-sector housing that enables homeownership.”
Not to mention, slashed budgets and mass federal layoffs have left refuges without necessary resources. According to Delta Waterfowl, the USFWS budget to operate the NWR System has declined by 35% or more since 2010, along with the loss of 711 full-time staff since 2011, a 29% workforce reduction.
“To keep refuges running well, you need efficient water delivery and fairly intensive management to maximize habitat productivity,” said John Devney, Delta’s chief policy officer. “In too many cases, there’s not the staff or infrastructure to do it.”
Stay tuned for the results of the review. And in the meantime, consider a trip to your local wildlife refuge.
Read the full article here
18 Comments
It’s concerning that the administration may already have refuges picked out for closure or overhaul, given the quick timeline and lack of transparency in the review process.
The potential consequences of this review for hunting and fishing access in the Great American Outdoors are significant and warrant close attention from stakeholders and the public.
As an avid hunter, I’m worried about the impact on my favorite hunting spots and the wildlife populations they support.
Representative Jared Huffman’s questioning of Nesvik during the oversight hearing highlighted the need for transparency and clear criteria in the review process.
The USFWS Director’s order has sparked a necessary conversation about the management and priorities of the National Wildlife Refuge System and National Fish Hatchery System, but more information is needed to fully understand the implications.
The review’s focus on ‘governance, oversight, and span of control’ could lead to significant changes in the management of the National Wildlife Refuge System and National Fish Hatchery System.
The Congressional Sportsmen Foundation’s press release highlights the need for a balanced approach that considers both the economic and environmental aspects of the National Wildlife Refuge System and National Fish Hatchery System.
The fact that Nesvik failed to provide specifics about a refuge that might be misaligned with current objectives raises suspicions about the true intentions behind the review.
The USFWS Director’s order to review the National Wildlife Refuge System and National Fish Hatchery System has raised concerns about the potential liquidation of public lands, with many questioning the intent behind the ‘comprehensive review’.
I agree, the timing of the order, issued just before Christmas vacation, seems suspicious and doesn’t allow for a thorough review.
Brian Nesvik’s statement that the team has ‘broad latitude’ to evaluate the original purposes of each refuge and compare them to current priorities and objectives is unclear and lacks specificity.
Nesvik’s statement that he has ‘no preconceived notions’ about specific refuges or fish hatcheries is hard to believe, given the context and timing of the review.
The order’s emphasis on evaluating the ‘founding purpose’ of each refuge could lead to a re-examination of the historical context and original intentions behind the establishment of these protected areas.
The review’s outcome could have far-reaching implications for conservation efforts, wildlife management, and the future of public lands in the United States.
The lack of clear criteria and transparency in the review process has created uncertainty and concern among stakeholders, including conservation groups and outdoor enthusiasts.
The Congressional Sportsmen Foundation’s support for the review is understandable, as it could lead to more efficient management and better fulfillment of the refuges’ primary purposes.
But what about the potential consequences for conservation efforts and wildlife habitats?
The deadline for the final detailed results of the review, February 15, seems rushed and may not allow for a thorough evaluation of the complex issues involved.