Management of National wildlife refuges in the United States: its impacts on birds. Wilson Bulletin

Full text

Wilson
Bull., 90(Z), 1978, pp.
309-321
MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES IN THE
UNITED STATES: ITS IMPACTS ON BIRDS
National Wildlife Refuges administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, De-
partment of Interior, occur in 49 of the 50 states and encompass more than 13,678,860 ha.
While much of the present refuge system was acquired for management of migratory
waterfowl, refuges have been acquired for preservation of “endangered” species ranging
from Whooping Cranes (Grus americana) to the Dusky Seaside Sparrow (Ammospiza
nigrescens). Refuges have been acquired through withdrawal from the public domain,
donations, outright purchase, leases, easements, and acceptance of lands administered by
other agencies. Consequently due to the diversity of habitats and species, origin, location,
etc., National Wildlife Refuges have different values to different interest groups. Despite
having wildlife-oriented missions, some refuges have been managed for grazing, recreation
such as boating, lumber products, commercial crops, etc. with frequent adverse effects
on
achieving desired wildlife objectives. Multiple and single uses of refuges contrary to
initial objectives when refuges were acquired have resulted in internal and public
criticism. These problems coupled with inadequate funding and staffing have led to
outside review of the overall system (Leopold 1968). More recently intense dissatisfac-
tion with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) “management by objectives”
approach to budgeting (resulting in no program specifically for refuges, continued in-
adequate funding of the refuge system, and a host of other alleged problems) has led
to much internal and public commentary on the desired future of the refuge system.
These problems led to preparation of draft and final environmental statements concerning
operation of the National Wildlife Refuge System (USFWS 197633). During 1976
and early 1977 The Conservation Committee of The Wilson Ornithological Society
solicited comments on and reviewed major practices on National Wildlife Refuges. The
complexity of the refuge system, funding restraints, inherent operational problems,
legislative authority, etc. were such as to overwhelm the Committee. Consequently it
was decided to identify major practices on refuges affecting birds that could conceivably
be altered to enhance avian habitats and populations. The report relies heavily on the
waterfowl literature as data concerning raptors, colonial waterbirds, and other non-game
birds on refuges were generally not available.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
President Theodore Roosevelt, by executive order on 14 March 1903, set aside Pelican
Island as the first federal bird refuge. By the end of his first term in 1904, Roosevelt
had created 51 wildlife refuges in 17 states and 3 territories. The Weeks-McLean Bill,
attached as a rider to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill and signed unknowingly by
outgoing President William Howard Taft, gave the federal government authority over
migratory birds in March 1913. The intent of the Weeks-McLean Law, considered an
unconstitutional invasion of state’s rights, was given added authority by the Migratory
Bird Treaty between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) in 1916. Then,
in 1918 Congress passed and President Woodrow Wilson signed the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act.
The various treaties and laws were regulatory and, although migratory species
responded with increased numbers for a time, it became clear that long-range problems
and solutions were in protection of habitat. Refuges established by executive order were
too few and scattered to insure the future of migratory species. The first attempt to
309

310
THE WILSON BULLETIN *
Vol.
90, No. 2,
June
1978
launch a program came in 1921 with bills that would establish a refuge system, a
Migratory Bird Refuge Commission, and a one-dollar federal hunting stamp. Labeled
as a “duck slaughter” bill, it failed 4 times in Congress. Finally, in 1929, a bill passed,
but only after stripping it of any shooting ground provisions and the federal hunting
stamp. It was to be funded with Congressional appropriations.
Concern for migratory species, especially waterfowl, increased as their numbers de-
clined with the drought of the 1930’s. Congress failed to appropriate funds for the
refuge system authorized in 1929. As a result of increasing concern, the federal hunting
stamp proposal was revised and finally passed in 1934. With a source of revenue and
the leadership of Jay “Ding” Darling, the National Wildlife Refuge System advanced
from a few scattered units to the system of 367 refuges that we have today.
Legislative authority, executive orders, and international treaties have given the federal
government responsibilities for all species occurring on refuges. These range from elk
(Cervns canadensis) on the National Elk Refuge in Wyoming, to the endangered Whoop-
ing Crane on the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Texas. But, for all these
responsibilities, the refuge system’s major focus and objective has been the preservation
and management of waterfowl. At the fiscal year 1974 level, 276 (75%) of all refuges
were managed specifically for waterfowl production, migration, or wintering. Wildlife
and Game Ranges and Big Game Refuges have principally been established by with-
drawals from the public lands. Over 9.5 million hectares in 24 units are in this category.
On 68 refuges, encompassing over 1.6 million hectares, management must be directed
toward certain species of colonial nesting birds.
Maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System has not kept pace with the early
interest shown in its establishment. During the system’s expansion more than 11,000
people were engaged in developing critical wildlife habitat. But, this support was not
SO
much for the refuges and their wildlife, as it was for the Civilian Conservation Corps
and the jobs it created during the Depression. Recently, USFWS Director L. A. Green-
wait testified, “The National Wildlife Refuge System, as with most activities of our
Service, has been underfunded for some time. The consequences are evident in facilities
which are inadequate and poorly maintained. Too few people are available to do a
proper job of refuge management.” Much needed funding and personnel for the refuge
system have been diverted to new responsibilities-energy research and development,
wiIderness studies, Youth Conservation Corps, endangered species, and marine mammaIs.
These activities have not been funded on their own merit, but at the expense of the
National Wildlife Refuge System. During the 1975 fiscal year, refuge field operations
were funded at about $20 million, $7.1 million less than the 1970 funding level. The
USFWS has estimated that, to fully develop the entire system to provide optimum
wildlife and public benefits, 5170 million would be needed. To maintain that level of
operation, an additional $34 million and 2000 man-years of labor would be needed
annually. The Carter administration has recommended a 30% increase in the level of
funding for the USFWS. It proposes additional personnel ceilings under the Bicentennial
Land Heritage Program.
MAJOR REFUGE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES THAT AFFECT BIRDS
Grazing
According to the Final Environmental Statement on the Operations of the National
Wildlife Refuge System (USFWS 1976b), in Fiscal Year 1974 (1 JuIy 1974-30 June
1975) 740 grazing permits were issued to private citizens for approximately 526,110 ha

CONSERVATION COMMITTEE REPORT 311
of refuge land. These 740 permittees used 354,589 Animal Unit Months (AUM’s).
Grazing occurred on 103 refuges in 36 states, using 4% of the total area on National
Wildlife Refuges. Areas grazed in addition to rangeland included native wet meadows
and riparian sites which are used extensively by nesting waterfowl and other birds.
The number of hectares grazed in each flyway were: Atlantic-5,947, Mississippi-
10,360, Central-158,321, and the Pacific-331,887. In addition, about 6475 ha were
grazed in Alaska. Forty-five percent of the 1,157,235 ha of rangeland in the system were
used by cattle. Nearly 70% of the total grazed area occurred in 3 states: Montana (8
refuges), Nevada (5 refuges), and Oregon (4 refuges).
Although a logical assumption would be that the high grazing use in the Pacific
Flyway mostly occurs on big game refuges, such as Hart Mountain NWR, Oregon,
Sheldon NWR, Nevada, and National Bison Range, Montana, such is not the case.
Malheur NWR, Oregon, a waterfowl and waterbird production area, had 98,502 AUM’s
in 1974-75, or 27.8% of the national refuge AUM total. Hart Mountain NWR had only
11,000 AUM’s or 3.1% of the national total. Sheldon NWR, which is considered over-
grazed, had 24,000 AUM’s (6.8%) while the National Bison Range had no cattle grazing.
The present IJSFWS policy is that grazing and haying programs be used to manipulate
vegetation to maintain or increase wildlife productivity and species diversity over a
sustained period of years at minimal cost to the government, and that grassland habitat
should be maintained for the primary benefit of wildlife populations. Grazing and
haying activities may be permitted to enhance, support, and contribute to established
wildlife management objectives, but must not conflict with those objectives (USFWS
197617). Unfortunately, when grazing is allowed, the USFWS frequently loses control
of local situations due to intense political pressure at all levels of administration.
At least 55 waterfowl studies have shown that grazing is detrimental to waterfowl
production. Only one study reported higher success on moderately grazed areas than on
idle areas (Burgess et al. 1965). Anderson (1957) reported that 42.2% of the 116 nests
on idle land in California hatched, while none of 7 on grazed land hatched. Glover
(1956) found 24.4% nesting success on idle land and lightly grazed areas in Iowa,
compared with 10.5% success on moderately and heavily grazed areas. One study had
nest losses of 80% in light cover, compared with 29% in dense cover (Schranck 1972).
Weller et al. (1958) reported that the effect of cattle grazing on vegetation in Utah was
as serious as the lack of water. On Malheur NWR, Oregon, Greater Sandhill Crane
(Grus
canadensis tab&z)
nesting success in 1976 was 54.6% in mowed-grazed, 63.6%
in mowed-ungrazed, and 84.2% in unmowed-ungrazed areas (C. D. Littlefield, unpubl.
data).
Grazing was reduced sharply in some regions of the United States after a memorandum
was released 22 December 1972 from the Director, IJSFWS. It stated “Recent research
at the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Station at Jamestown, North Dakota, indicates
that haying and grazing are incompatible with upland nesting duck and ground nesting
bird objectives.
. . .
While the recommendations apply primarily to the north central
region of the United States and the southern Prairie Provinces of Canada, application
of these practices on refuges in other geographic areas have demonstrated similar
favorable response by waterfowl and other ground nesting birds.”
In North Dakota, AUM’s were reduced after this memo, hut by 1975 had increased,
with additional increases planned in the future. At J. Clark Salycr NWR, North Dakota,
three-quarters to 1 AUM per acre (.4 ha) was used in 1976 (total 2600 AUM’s), but
present plans are to increase the use to 2 AUM’s per acre. Other examples in North
Dakota include Arrowwood NWR with 435 AUM’s in 1971; 1109 in 1975; and 1650

312
THE WILSON BULLETIN . Vol. 90, No. 2, June 1978
projected for 1979. Upper Souris NWR had 2348 AUM’s in 1971; 2348 in 1975; and
5634 are projected for 1979.
The most serious grazing problems on National Wildlife Refuges appear to occur
in Oregon and Nevada because of local political pressure with over- or untimely grazing
being typical of most western refuges. Examples given are but a small sample of the
problems associated with this management “tool.”
In 1948 on Malheur NWR, waterfowl production was 150,000 ducks, but in 1974 only
21,300 were produced. In 1948 AUM’s were 74,385, increasing to 101,726 by 1951. In
1961 and 1971 AUM’s were 122,404 and 123,807 respectively. As AUM’s increased duck
production decreased. From 1962 to 1972 the average number of ducks produced an-
nually was 29,600. Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), which are dependent on residual
vegetation from the previous year for nesting cover, declined from 50,000 produced in
1949 to 2,120 in 1974. Some changes in grazing practices are presently occurring at
Malheur. By 1975-76 AUM’s had been reduced to 88,221. After considerable pressure
from environmental groups in 1976, AUM ‘s were reduced to 65,828. In addition, 1712 ha
were mowed for hay. By 1977, 8782 ha were in “non-use,” compared with 263 ha in 1962.
At Malheur NWR the grazing program requires over 338 km of internal fences. In 1976,
to protect river banks and dikes from severe cattle trampling, several km of additional
3.wire fences were placed between heavily grazed areas and canal and river banks.
These new fences have resulted in many Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis) pairs having
their traditional territories bisected with barbed wire. Obviously, grazing in this situa-
tion does not enhance refuge objectives but instead creates conflicts with adverse effects
on bird populations.
Wildlife collisions with fences are common. Mule deer (Odocoileus
hemionus)
,
pronghorn
(Antilocapra nmericnna),
and numerous birds have been killed flying into
or becoming entangled in fences. Greater Sandhill Cranes have been killed at Malheur
and Grays Lake NWR, Idaho. Flightless young Whooping Cranes became entangled in
barbed wire fences on a number of occasions at Grays Lake NWR, in 1975. One young
Whooping Crane died in 1976 near Monte Vista NWR, Colorado, after colliding with a
fence. At Red Rock Lakes NWR, Montana, several moose
(Alms dces)
calves have
died from injuries sustained after becoming entangled in fences. At times, simple
modification of fences can be beneficial. While over 20 km of interior fences have been
removed at Grays Lake NWR, virtually all of the remaining fences have been modified
from 4-5 to 3 wires. This has greatly improved movements of young cranes. Of im-
portance is the obvious fact that fences have little value for wildlife. They are expensive
and are placed on refuges primarily to enhance livestock grazing.
On many refuges, power lines transect nesting areas or bisect principal flight paths.
Some of these power lines bring electricity to pumps that supply water for cattle. Power
lines are a major mortality factor for swans, cranes, eagles, and other large birds. At
Basque de1 Apache NWR, New Mexico, aircraft markers have been placed on lines
and some lines have been buried. Mortality has been dramatically reduced. On other
refuges either the pumps should be removed or power line markers should be placed
at strategic locations in wildlife use areas. Preferably the lines should be removed or
buried.
At Stillwatcr NWR, Nevada, the USFWS operates the refuge with a cooperative
agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation, Nevada Fish and Game Department, and
the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District. Much of the 90,653 ha refuge is unfenced and
cattle move onto the area freely. On the portion that is fenced, grazing is permitted for 11
months annually; total refuge AUM’s is 15,000. Refuge areas are leased from the
Bureau of Reclamation by the local irrigation district. Refuge personnel collect AUM

CONSERVATION COMMITTEE REPORT
313
fees, issue permits, and count livestock on and off the refuge. In return, all fees collected
are given to the irrigation district. Most grazing is determined by the district and
attempts to reduce AUM’s have failed (one permittee is a member of the irrigation dis-
trict board).
Napier (1974) in his recommendation for Stillwater Marsh, stated “Grazing was used
as a tool for opening up shorelines overgrown with dense stands of cattail and bulrush
in Stillwater Marsh’s early history. The result was increased duck production. Now,
poor water conditions have resulted in a downward trend or elimination of emergents
on some impoundments. Management is now aimed at encouraging emergent aquatic
growth. Livestock grazing in the marsh is detrimental in this respect, for cattle heavily
graze the emergent vegetation.” Because the Bureau of Reclamation, a sister agency of
the USFWS in the Department of Interior, owns the land, methods should be investi-
gated to solve not only the grazing problems, but also the water deficiencies that pres-
ently exist on the refuge. Stillwater NWR is unique in that it provides marshland habitat
in an area that has few wetlands.
Summer grazing continues, although at a greatly reduced level from 1975 and 1976,
on Grays Lake NWR, Idaho, even though the endangered Whooping Crane is presently
being introduced by transplanting their eggs into Greater Sandhill Crane nests. In
1975 two young Whooping Cranes disappeared within 2-3 days after large numbers of
cattle were introduced into areas occupied by these chicks.
Improvements have been made on some refuges. Hart Mountain NWR, Oregon,
began reducing AUM’s in 1969 and in 1976 (11,000 AUM’s) the number of pronghorn
antelope young per 100 does was 59. On Sheldon NWR, Nevada (24,000 ATJM’s), im-
mediately south of Hart Mountain NWR, the young-adult ratio was only 22/100 (E.
McLaury, pers.
comm.) .
Present plans are to reduce the number of AUM’s at Sheldon.
At Basque de1 Apache NWR, New Mexico, all grazing has been terminated. All internal
fences have been removed and many pastures which had heen “improved” for cattle have
been converted to wildlife food crops or man-made marshes. Wintering Snow Geese
(Chen hyperborea) have increased from a few hundred to over 21,000 in the past 10
years and Greater Sandhill Cranes have increased from 3200 to over 12,000.
At Ruby Lake NWR, Nevada, grazing occurs from 15 April through 1 January. Present
plans are to reduce the 5200 AUM’s by one-half. Wildlife changes that occur in the
deferred and hayed-only areas will be monitored and compared with those in areas that
continue to be grazed.
At Red Rock Lakes NWR, Montana, the management announced to local stockmen
that there would he a 10% reduction annually in AUM’s over a 5 year period. Sur-
prisingly, little opposition was encountered and the program is in its third year, with
AUM’s now 30% fewer than the original 13,144.
Prescribed burning has been used in grassland management to maintain desired suc-
cessional stages. To avoid the cost of fencing, issuance of permits, soil erosion, over-
fertilization (affecting water qualitv), and other aspects of grazing programs, burning
could be used to accomplish the same objectives. This would also prevent the refuge
system from becoming more involved with and influenced by local stockmen, grazing as-
sociations, and political pressure (Voight 1976).
Haying
In 1974-75, 16,714 ha were mowed for hay but ungrazed by 589 permittees on National
Wildlife Refuges. In comparison with grazing, haying generally creates only minor
conflicts with wildlife management. The 3 major grazing states had minimal hay acre-

314
THE WILSON BULLETIN
* Vol.
90, No. 2, June 1978
ages in 1974-75. The Central Flyway was most important, with refuges in North Dakota
(4521 ha) and Nebraska (4185 ha) being leaders in this practice (USFWS 1976131.
In some situations haying can be beneficial. Native grasslands that receive flood
water in late spring can be mowed to discourage early nesting species. In areas with
limited water supplies, channels can be mowed to allow for rapid water movement.
Data from Malheur NWR, Oregon, have shown that Greater Sandhill Cranes, Canada
Geese (Branta canadensis) and some species of ducks, feed and loaf in mowed areas, but
prefer to nest in unmowed areas.
The major conflict with mowing is the time of year when it begins. Interviews with
mower operators on private land in southeast Oregon in 1976 indicated high mortality of
young birds from 1 to 15 July. Two operators estimated they had killed between 400
and 600 birds during this 2-week period. Most of these were shorebirds, but numerous
waterfowl nests, young ducks, and crane chicks were also reported destroyed. One
operator stated that he had killed 2 pronghorn antelope young in 1975. On Malheur
NWR, 4.2% of the Mallards hatch after 16 July. Other species and hatching percentages
are Gadwall (Anus strepera) 14.5%, C’ mnamon Teal (Anas cyanoptera) 15.00/o, and
Redhead (Arthm americana) 13.4%. Many newly hatched broods are seen after 1
August. Younger Greater Sandhill Cranes suffer high mortality from mowing, especially
early in the season. Young cranes lie down and hide in vegetation when approached and
remain hidden until hit by the mower. Recently at Malheur NWR, haying has been de-
layed until 10 August to allow cranes time to fledge. In some areas on the refuge where
flightless young are known to occur, mowing has been delayed even longer.
Many refuges begin mowing activities in July, with some possibly as early as late
June. Until recently Medicine Lake NWR, Montana, initiated mowing on 15 June.
Because of political pressure from one permittee, it was about 8 years before mowing was
terminated after it was publicly announced that it was to be stopped within 2 years.
Data collected at Malheur NWR is potentially applicable to other waterfowl produc-
tion areas. Refuges that allow mowing before 1 August are contributing to substantial
losses of wildlife. Biological data on the effects on wildlife should be collected on
refuges that have early mowing programs. To alleviate losses, haying should be delayed
until 15 August. It is important to note that virtually no data are available regarding
the impact of haying (or grazing) on other ground nesting birds.
Farming
Farming for production of cereal grains for waterfowl use has long been a major
endeavor on many refuges. Other crops (including oranges! 1 are sometimes grown. In
1974 at least 131 refuges farmed about 65,966 ha (USFWS 1976b). Primary reasons
for farming on refuges relate to providing supplemental foods for waterfowl during
migration and wintering periods and for preventing crop damage outside refuge
boundaries. The latter has not been overly successful when the large concentrations of
waterfowl, especially geese, cranes, and ducks on some refuges are considered. Farming
practices on refuges have been successful in concentrating birds, frequently too much
so as witnessed by problems with shortstopping birds before traditional wintering areas are
reached, crop damage problems adjacent to refuges, hunter firing lines leading to such
problems as lead-poisoning dieoffs and slob behavior of hunters, and outbreaks of density
dependent diseases such as fowl cholera and duck viral enteritis. Possible negative
side effects of farming on National Wildlife Refuges may result from crop associated
use of pesticides and herbicides.
In the near past many refuges were evaluated on number of days of use they provided

CONSERVATION COMMITTEE REPORT
315
for waterfowl. Consequently the pressure was to show yearly increases in numbers of
waterfowl using areas over longer time intervals. It is now recognized by some refuge
managers and administrators that these goals were not beneficial to the waterfowl re-
source. Consequently, amount of land farmed on some refuges is decreasing with diversi-
fication from cereal grains becoming apparent. Goals of refuges should be reevaluated.
It is probable that having the bulk of individual populations of birds on one refuge
for long periods, such as is common with geese, is not healthful for the birds or beneficial
to the overall management of the resource. Diversified and well dispersed refuges,
especially in migration and wintering areas, are most desirable.
Timber management
Management of timber for the lumber and pulp industries on National Wildlife Refuge
lands occurred on 21 refuges, primarily in the southeast and northeast in 1974. These
21 refuges reported a timber harvest from 12,141 ha (USFWS 1976b). While this may
be a small portion of the overall refuge system, impacts on some refuges are extensive.
As an example of the magnitude of these activities, the annual operating budget for
Noxubee NWR, Mississippi, has in recent years been about $110,000, yet this 13,760 ha
refuge has sold up to $250,000 worth of timber per year. The income goes into the
Federal Treasury and does not come back to the refuge system. Timber management
and some economic gain from the forests on National Wildlife Refuges is not inherently
bad. The extent and type of management may be. For example, the USFWS slogan used
to characterize timber management on southern National Wildlife Refuges is “all-age
management in even-age units.” This is a euphemism for clear-cutting. A booklet de-
scribing this management system on Noxubee NWR states: “The highly productive
alluvial soils (growing mostly hardwood) are managed under a long rotation (120 years)
and a frequent cutting cycle (15 years). The rotation age for upland areas (including
both pine and hardwood) is 80 years, and a cutting cycle is 10 years.” Thus, “all-age
management” allows some hardwoods to grow to the age of 120 and some pines to grow
to the age of 80. If such a plan was truly for “all-age” management, the rotation cycle
should be based on the natural potential longevity of the trees involved. Sizes of clearcuts
are stated in USFWS brochures to be limited to 12 ha though refuge foresters admit that
some cuts approach 20 ha. Aside from rotation ages and sizes of cuts, there is enough
controversy over the ecological effects of clearcutting (decreased diversity, etc.) that this
practice seems inappropriate for management of a National Wildlife Refuge. In short,
the forests of National Wildlife Refuges in the southeast are being managed to maximize
economic return at the expense of those wildlife species such as Red-cockaded Wood-
peckers (Picoides
borealis)
which require more mature forests. An important com-
ponent of the southern forest ecosystems is being lost.
Predator control
Few data are available on predator problems on National Wildlife Refuges. In 1972
predator control through use of toxicants was discontinued on most public lands. Un-
fortunately, few comparative data were collected before 1972, and on most refuges little
has been collected since 1972.
It is possible that many refuges have only minor predation problems, but some have
high predation rates. Data have been collected on Greater Sandhill Cranes on Malheur
NWR, Oregon, since 1956. After predator control through poisoning was terminated in
1972, production was greatly reduced from 1973 through 1975. From 236 pairs that nest
on the refuge, only 2 young fledged in both 1973 and 1974. In 1975 only 17 fledged.

316
THE WILSON BULLETIN * Vol. 90, No. 2,
June
1978
Common Ravens (Corvus corax) and raccoons (Procyon lotor) were the major egg
consumers, while coyotes (Canis
latrans)
took eggs and young. In the winter of 1972-73
the black-tailed jackrabbit (Leplcs
californicus)
population sharply declined and coyotes
moved onto the refuge to find alternate food sources. One pond where more than 300
young Canada Geese were captured and banded in 1972 produced only 28 in 1973. It was
not uncommon during mid-day in August to observe more than 45 coyotes along one 68
km road through the refuge. Coyotes normally cause only minor problems on Ma1heu.r
when jackrabbit numbers are high. However, Common Ravens find ideal conditions in
southeast Oregon. Numerous rimrocks provide nesting sites and the cattle industry
and nesting birds provide an abundance of food. One roosting site on Malheur Lake in
1976 was being used by more than 800 ravens.
Two noteworthy predation incidents were documented in 1976. At Crescent Lake NWR,
Nebraska, 2 of 5 Trumpeter Swans (Olor
buccinator)
that were to be released in 1977
were killed by raccoons or coyotes, and 26 Greater Sandhill Crane nests including 3 that
contained transplanted Whooping Crane eggs, were destroyed by coyotes at Grays Lake
NWR, Idaho. Predator problems have also been reported at Attwater Prairie Chicken
NWR, Texas.
Many refuges are artificially developed with numerous canals, artificial ponds, nesting
islands, water control structures, and other man-made elements to attract waterfowl and
other birds and encourage nesting. Such an artificial environment also attracts large
concentrations of predators, especially when predator control is being practiced on sur-
rounding private lands. With habitat manipulation, species that require dense nesting
cover are benefitted. But for species that nest in open situations and construct nests that
are exposed during periods of absence, dense vegetation is of little value, and nests are
especially vulnerable to avian predation. Many species of shorebirds and marsh birds
fall into this category. On refuges that support breeding populations of species with low
reproductive potential, predator management should be used to insure their continued
survival.
Severe losses on some refuges will continue if predator populations remain unchanged.
If nesting studies are not initiated to ascertain the impact of predation, present practices
of non-control will continue. Whether California Gulls (Larus californicus) in Utah,
Black-billed Magpies (Pica pica) in Colorado, striped skunks (Mephitis
mephitis)
and
red foxes
(Vulpes fulva)
in North Dakota, Common Ravens in Oregon, etc., the impacts
of predators on federal wildlife refuges need to be examined. If predators are a serious
detriment to the production of other wildlife, their populations should be properly
managed.
Recreational activities
Fishing.-In 1974 fishing was allowed on 171 refuges with fishing waters being stocked
on at least 18 refuges (USFWS 197613). G
enerally fishing is a recreational use of refuge
wetlands that is compatible with the protection and management of birds. However,
excessive use of shallow vegetated areas of lakes and streams by wading and boating
fishermen can disturb feeding and nesting waterbirds. Many southern refuges, such as
Noxubee NWR, prohibit fishing during the winter months in order to provide sanctuary
for wintering waterfowl, though when nesting activities of resident species are beginning,
the lakes are opened to fishing again. Prime nesting areas on many refuges are closed
to fishing until about I-15 July. Such dates are unrealistic on some refuges as nesting
continues after these dates. Timing of fishing closures (if any) varies from refuge to
refuge and no policy appears to have been formulated on this use of refuges above the

CONSERVATION COMMITTEE REPORT
317
local level. In northern areas, fishing should be delayed until about 1 August with some
presently open fishing waters being closed to protect late nesting species and their broods.
In general fishing regulations on refuges are appropriate but some refuges allow use of
trot lines upon which mergansers, loons, and diving ducks have inadvertantly been
snared. This is an unnecessary abuse of National Wildlife Refuges.
Boating.-Various sizes and types of boats have been used on National Wildlife
Refuges for many years in pursuit of refuge management goals and fishing. With the
advent of motors and more leisure time, various publics have demanded and received
access to National Wildlife Refuges for motor boating and water skiing. Presently 42
refuges permit high speed pleasure boating; mostly on areas where the USFWS has
secondary control (USFWS 197633). Obvious and documented impacts of high speed
boating are shoreline degradation, disruption of nesting and feeding areas with
loss
of production of young, and displacement of water birds. These problems, especially
loss
of production of young, are especially pronounced at Ruby Lake NWR, Nevada, and
have resulted in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment on the effects
of boating at this refuge (USFWS 1976a).
Ruby Lake NWR was established 2 July 1938 as a refuge and breeding ground for
migratory birds and other wildlife. Most of the 15,229 ha area was purchased, with the
remainder being withdrawn from the public domain. Boating was allowed for the pur-
pose of fishing starting in the mid-1940’s, with water skiing being allowed starting about
1955. Sizes of boats and motors and numbers of water skiers increased until the late
1960’s when the USFWS moved to protect the waterfowl resource (principally nesting
Canvasback,
Aythya valisineria,
and Redhead ducks) by restricting power boating.
Since that time public and political pressures have prevented adequate restriction of
power boating necessary to protect the waterfowl resource with concomitant decreases
in production of over water nesting waterfowl. More recently commercial developments
by large corporations have resulted in a proliferation of sub-divisions for recreational
homes in the area near the refuge. Advertisements clearly indicate that Ruby Lake NWR
and associated water related activities on the refuge are important inducements attracting
people to purchase “ranchettes,” etc. With increasing political and public demands for
boating related activities on this refuge, it is quite obvious that the original purpose
of the area has been lost. The future of this refuge is in dire straits and it may become
a recreation area if public apathy cannot be changed to prevent local abuse of a national
resource.
Boat related disturbances with no or little consideration of values of wetlands and
associated water birds have no place on National Wildlife Refuges. When threatened
or endangered species are impacted by such activities, closures of refuges to boats should
be mandatory.
Hunting.-Sport hunting of wildlife was permitted on portions of 184 National Wild-
life Refuges in 1974 (USFWS 197633). Hunting was primarily for migratory waterfowl
but
also
was allowed for resident game birds and big game species. Since hunters have
provided funds for much of the prime wildlife habitat purchased for refuges, it is logical
and rational that some level of hunting be allowed. Few refuges are completely open
to sport hunting and it would appear that state and federal regulations on season
length, bag limits, methods of taking, etc. are more than adequate to maintain avian
resources. Where endangered species are involved, such as Whooping Cranes and
Mexican Ducks
(Anas diazi),
it is difficult to see the rationale for sport hunting of look-
alike species. Hunting of look-alike species on those few refuges where these potential
problems exist should necessarily be reevaluated and probably discontinued.

318
THE WILSON BULLETIN *
Vol.
90, No. 2, June 1978
Other management problems
A recurring problem on National Wildlife Refuges is the ease with which refuge lands
can be abused by other federal agencies. Some refuges have been used as practice
areas for low flying military aircraft, others as convenient and inexpensive routes for
highway and utility rights-of-way. The advent of NEPA hopefully will eliminate some
of this abuse, but problems still remain. For example, the USFWS had no objection
to the channelization of the Yazoo River by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through
Yazoo NWR, Mississippi.
A recent trend in refuge management has been to consolidate land holdings and to
adjust refuge boundaries to facilitiate management. This has the effect of making a nice
compact refuge rather than one with “fingers” extending into the surrounding non-refuge
lands. While we appreciate the management problems involved, such consolidation often
results in losses for wildlife. At one refuge the adjustments in land holdings were made
by trading prime forest land for agricultural lands. In addition to the loss of not-soon-
to-be-replaced forest habitat, the deal also resulted in a net loss in acreage to the refuge.
Apparently it is easier to trade lands than it is for a refuge to either sell or purchase lands.
Hence, based on market values, the refuge traded more acres of forest to obtain fewer
acres of crop land. We feel that the increased edge and linear distances on more dis-
persed refuges can often provide habitat for larger wildlife populations than could
compact refuges. An added benefit of such dispersed refuges is that they often provide
an ecological archipelago that will allow wildlife the opportunity to disperse to other
suitable habitats outside the refuge.
Some National Wildlife Refuges include areas of potential value as wilderness. Such
areas should be identified and protected. Personnel at one refuge indicated that such
an area occurred on their refuge, but that they were going to construct a road through
the middle of it so that it would not qualify for wilderness status and so that current forest
management practices could be continued. Such actions are deplorable.
In addition to management or lack of management on National Wildlife Refuges
that affects birds, we feel compelled to point out a few refuge “management” practices
that adversely affect ornithologists and bird-watchers. Refuges tend to be generally
understaffed as a result of inadequate funding. One reflection of this problem is the
operating schedule for most refuges. Refuge offices typically open at about 08:OO and
close about 16:30 Monday through Friday and are closed on weekends. This is fine
for carrying out wildlife management activities, but many refuges also receive large
numbers of human visitors-most on weekends and after regular working hours. An
open office with descriptive brochures and bird checklists could win a lot of support
for the refuge system. Additionally, as some refuge managers see it their biggest prob-
lems are managing people. Perhaps these management problems would be fewer if
refuge public relations were improved by tailoring refuge office hours to accommodate
visitors and by providing informational materials.
Ornithologists seeking to conduct ecological research on National Wildlife Refuges
are faced with an unwarranted number of bureaucratic problems. Not only are state and
federal bird banding permits required, but the researcher must also obtain a refuge permit
and file an annual report of his activities on the refuge. If permits were simply obtained
by visiting or writing to refuge headquarters, the requirement would not seem unreason-
able, but often this is not the case. Permit requests are often channelled through
regional USFWS offices, sometimes through Washington, D.C., before a permit is
granted-thus causing the researcher loss of valuable time. Collecting permits for refuges
are particularly difficult to obtain-and perhaps justly so, were it not for the fact that

CONSERVATION COMMITTEE REPORT
319
hunters are often given freedom to hunt game birds on refuges with no more difficulty
than obtaining a state hunting license and a duck stamp. Another problem associated
with conducting research on National Wildlife Refuges is the USFWS practice of
frequently moving personnel from one refuge to another. As soon as a researcher has
established a good working relationship with one refuge manager, he is often con-
fronted with explaining his work and adjusting his research activities to conform to a
new manager’s interpretation of regulations. In all fairness, however, the legitimate
ornithological researcher has much to gain from working on National Wildlife Refuges.
Our experience has for the most part been that refuge personnel are eager to have
research conducted on refuges and that they are willing to provide logistic support
whenever possible.
SUMMARY
National Wildlife Refuges administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, De-
partment of Interior are located in 49 of the 50 states and encompass more than 13,678,860
ha. While purchased or obtained for a variety of purposes including migratory birds
(primarily waterfowl) and endangered species, National Wildlife Refuges are vitally
important for maintenance of important habitats and overall conservation of many
species of birds. Problems associated with management of National Wildlife Refuges
include: (1) concentrating large numbers of birds which increases risk of catastrophic
losses due to disease and other mortality factors and the opportunity for damage to
items valued by man; (2) overgrazing by domestic livestock; (3) cropping for hay;
(4) water oriented activities such as boating; (5) creation of monocultures by selective
cropping or planting practices; (6) a lack of selective management of predators; (71
failure to consider impacts of artificial structures such as fences, powerlines, signs, etc.;
and (8) inadequate manipulation of biological and mechanical tools useful for main-
taining and improving habitats useful for birds. Major administrative problems include
failure to clearly identify and support objectives of individual refuges and woefully
inadequate funding for refuge staffing and maintenance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Creation of a National Wildlife Refuge Service equal to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in the Department of Interior to manage National Wildlife Refuges would
result in unnecessary bureaucracy, diversion of talent and funding, and would
fragment a cohesive national policy for protecting habitat for wild animals. Ad-
ministration and management of National Wildlife Refuges should continue as a
function of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior. However, the
refuge system should be given full program status and administration should be
streamlined with an Assistant Director directly responsible for the refuge program.
2. Funding for staffing and maintenance of National Wildlife Refuges has been woe-
fully inadequate for many years. Adequate funding to maintain refuges should be
strongly supported. Funding for enhancement of existing refuges is desperately
needed as is funding for expansion of the refuge system. Funding should be in-
creased for public relations and hiring of non-game biologists.
3. Objectives of each National Wildlife Refuge should be reevaluated with manage-
ment being directed towards obtaining desired objectives once they are defined.
4. Uncontrolled grazing by domestic livestock has been documented to adversely affect
nesting success and productivity of birds. Grazing of domestic livestock on National

320
THE WILSON BULLETIN -
Vol.
90, No. 2, June 1978
Wildlife Refuges should be carefully evaluated and in many instances reduced to
levels compatible with refuge objectives. Proper timing of grazing is critical and
all summer grazing in production areas should be eliminated. Winter grazing
should be allowed only for desirable habitat manipulation where controlled burning
is not feasible. Refuges should not be managed for domestic livestock production.
5. Controlled burning has value for manipulating habitats and it should be further
tested with effects documented. Where beneficial, controlled burning should be
used in refuge management.
6. Unnecessary structures such as fences, powerlines, etc. should be removed within
refuge boundaries where they have been documented to be hazardous to birds. All
necessary structures should be marked with aircraft warning markers or other devices
to prevent and reduce bird-object collisions.
7. Mowing of habitats for hay crops or other refuge objectives should be delayed
until 1-15 August in production areas important to birds. Dates of mowing after
1 August should depend on locality and local condition. Management of refuges
for commercial hay crops is not desirable.
8. Selective control of predators on refuges managed for birds should be implemented
in areas where limited nesting and brood cover occurs or where severe local condi-
tions exist. Management of production refuges should seek to prevent ecological
situations favorable to maintaining or encouraging unnatural concentrations of
predators.
9. Excessive or unnatural fall and winter concentrations of birds should be discouraged
through habitat manipulation on refuges; such concentrations invite catastrophic
losses and damage to private property.
10. Public recreation activities on National Wildlife Refuges should not be given
preference over stated objectives of the refuges. Examples of undesirable activities
when birds are nesting are boating, water skiing, and fishing. Non-human use
areas are an integral part of the refuge concept and all human recreation activities
should be meshed within the objectives of each refuge. Public visitation should be
encouraged on portions of refuges with adequate staffing and suitable open hours.
11. Diversity of habitats should be encouraged on National Wildlife Refuges and
practices that lead to large areas of monoculture should be discontinued. This is
especially a problem in forested areas.
12. Forest management on National Wildlife Refuges should take into account the
natural potential longevity of the tree species present and should provide for the
needs of species characteristic of mature forest ecosystems.
13. Collection and compilation of data concerning the effects of management practices
on avian species, especially non-waterfowl, should be an integral part of refuge
management. Research into management procedures and other scientific endeavors
should be encouraged on National Wildlife Refuges with improvement of permit
procedures and requirements being immediately instigated.
14. Ccnsideration should be given where feasible to include portions of some refuges
in the Wilderness System to further protect unusual and unique habitats.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The volume of correspondence generated by interest in this topic was considerable.
We thank all who corresponded with us and hope that confidences were not compromised.
Numerous personnel of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assisted us in locating litera-
ture references and in providing access to unpublished refuge reports. These individuals

CONSERVATION COMMITTEE REPORT
321
are dedicated to maintaining and enhancing wildlife habitats despite administrative
harassment, snafus, and inadequate funding. We are indebted to them and are sincerely
appreciative of their efforts. Special thanks go to E. M. Brigham, III, R. Drewien, C. E.
Knoder, G. L. Pearson, and C. Talbot for constructive suggestions and comments. While
many individuals discussed the topic with and in other ways assisted us, the report and
recommendations were prepared by the Conservation Committee and represent our
collective position.
LITERATURE CITED
ANDERSON, W. 1957. Waterfowl nesting study in Sacramento Valley, California, 1955.
Calif. Fish Game 43:71-g&
BURGESS, H. H., H. I-I. PIIINCE,
AND
D. L. TRAUGER. 1965. Blue-winged Teal nesting
success as related to land use. J. Wildl. Manage. 29:89-95.
GLOVER, F. A. 1956. Nesting and production of the Blue-winged Teal (Anas
discors
Linnaeus) in northwest Iowa. .I. Wildl. Manage. 20:28-46.
LEOPOLD, A. S., C. COTTAM, I. McT. COWAN, I. N. GABRIELSON,
AND
T. L. KIMBALL.
1968. The National Wildlife Refuge System. Trans. North Am. Wildl. and Nat.
Resources Conf. 33:3%54.
NAPIER, L. D. 1974. Duck nesting snccess on the Stillwater Marsh. U.S. Fish and
Wildl. Serv. Unpubl. Rept.
SCHRANCK, B. W. 1972. Waterfowl nest cover and some predation relationships. J.
Wildl. Manage. 36:182--186.
U.S. FISH
AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1976a. Environmental Impact Assessment. Effect of
boating on management of Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Dept. Interior.
-. 197613. Final Environmental Statement. Operation of the National Wildlife
Refuge System. Dept. Interior.
VOIGHT, W., JR. 1976. Public grazing lands, use and misuse by industry and govern-
ment. Rutgers Univ. Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
WELLER, M. W., B. H. WINGFIELD,
AND J.
P. Low. 1958. Effects of habitat deterioration
on bird populations of a small Utah marsh. Condor 60:220-226.
CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
CLAIT E. BRAUN, Chairman
KEITH W. HARMON
JEROME A. JACKSON
CARROLL D. LITTLEFIELD