West Virginia State Chapter National Wild Turkey Federation
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| REALLY, THE TRUTH ABOUT NATIONAL PARKS AND PRESERVES: A Wildlife Manager’s View |
and feel compelled to provide some additional information. First, of the 390 National
Grand Teton National Park is the only unit designated “National Park” in which hunting
is authorized (please see NPS article attached). Hunting there is specific to large
ungulates, not the breadth of species available by that states statute. You were partly
correct when you stated that hunting is permitted on National Preserves, key word
being “permitted”. Of the 18 National Preserves, only 8 are in the continental U.S.
Examining a few of their websites and talking to them reveals that some allow the same
variety of hunting as the parent state i.e., Great Sand Dunes National Preserve in
Colorado, while others i.e., Big Thicket National Preserve in Texas restricts season
length and some species available for harvest and Big Cypress National Preserve in
Florida only allow the hunting of species they consider problematic i.e., deer and hogs
(not waterfowl, shorebirds or alligators). Our experience with the NPS desire to
convert Bluestone WMA into a National Scenic River (another unit of the NPS) was at
best difficult and would have curtailed virtually all of the active habitat management
activities employed on that area. Given that the “National” designation increases all
citizens’ ability to comment and protest management decisions, we eventually would
have had to scientifically monitor population levels of all game species to justify
hunting them.
I took the liberty to consult the 2006 NPS management policies document; to my
knowledge this is their principle guidance document, to research consumptive use on
NPS lands (please see Excerpts doc. attached). The first observation I noticed was that
consumptive uses i.e., hunting, trapping, sanging etc., were not designated uses. They
are not “will be” but “may be” allowable uses on NPS lands. These activities are
authorized by “statute or regulation”, provided of course that political interest
elsewhere does not someday preclude it. This is followed by NPS determination that
harvesting certain species will not “unacceptably” impact park resources. What is
acceptable to the state that manages game species may be totally unacceptable to the
NPS, a case in point is the exclusion of certain waterfowl and wading birds and others
from the huntable species in the Big Cypress. Ms. Rodd desires to dig ramps on this
land, but fails to appreciate that when it becomes a “National” whatever, those
activities are dictated by a nation’s interest and not what has been historically done or
is locally acceptable by the states citizenry, this has been demonstrated repeatedly on
our two National Wildlife Refuges.
The Wildlife Resources Section has been participating in a U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service flyway effort to increase the amount of early successional stage habitat (ESH)
in our state. Of the 80+ species of wildlife in decline that depend on ESH, only a few are
hunted and their policy against artificial manipulation i.e., timber management, brush
management, etc., seemingly precludes the habitat manipulation necessary to restore
or enhance these wildlife populations.
You are correct to be concerned about fish stocking. Their guidance allows for
stocking in larger reservoirs or other politically designated areas. The problem again
is what happens to this activity when the politics change and rainbow trout are viewed
as a non-native exotic species. Lastly, their desire to allow visitors to enjoy a
“soundscape” that is free of human input would make gunshots and chainsaws
problematic at best.
National Park Service Management Policies (click here to
see policies)
NPS Hunting Article (Click here to read article)
Grand Teton National Park is the only unit designated “National Park” in which hunting
is authorized (please see NPS article attached). Hunting there is specific to large
ungulates, not the breadth of species available by that states statute. You were partly
correct when you stated that hunting is permitted on National Preserves, key word
being “permitted”. Of the 18 National Preserves, only 8 are in the continental U.S.
Examining a few of their websites and talking to them reveals that some allow the same
variety of hunting as the parent state i.e., Great Sand Dunes National Preserve in
Colorado, while others i.e., Big Thicket National Preserve in Texas restricts season
length and some species available for harvest and Big Cypress National Preserve in
Florida only allow the hunting of species they consider problematic i.e., deer and hogs
(not waterfowl, shorebirds or alligators). Our experience with the NPS desire to
convert Bluestone WMA into a National Scenic River (another unit of the NPS) was at
best difficult and would have curtailed virtually all of the active habitat management
activities employed on that area. Given that the “National” designation increases all
citizens’ ability to comment and protest management decisions, we eventually would
have had to scientifically monitor population levels of all game species to justify
hunting them.
I took the liberty to consult the 2006 NPS management policies document; to my
knowledge this is their principle guidance document, to research consumptive use on
NPS lands (please see Excerpts doc. attached). The first observation I noticed was that
consumptive uses i.e., hunting, trapping, sanging etc., were not designated uses. They
are not “will be” but “may be” allowable uses on NPS lands. These activities are
authorized by “statute or regulation”, provided of course that political interest
elsewhere does not someday preclude it. This is followed by NPS determination that
harvesting certain species will not “unacceptably” impact park resources. What is
acceptable to the state that manages game species may be totally unacceptable to the
NPS, a case in point is the exclusion of certain waterfowl and wading birds and others
from the huntable species in the Big Cypress. Ms. Rodd desires to dig ramps on this
land, but fails to appreciate that when it becomes a “National” whatever, those
activities are dictated by a nation’s interest and not what has been historically done or
is locally acceptable by the states citizenry, this has been demonstrated repeatedly on
our two National Wildlife Refuges.
The Wildlife Resources Section has been participating in a U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service flyway effort to increase the amount of early successional stage habitat (ESH)
in our state. Of the 80+ species of wildlife in decline that depend on ESH, only a few are
hunted and their policy against artificial manipulation i.e., timber management, brush
management, etc., seemingly precludes the habitat manipulation necessary to restore
or enhance these wildlife populations.
You are correct to be concerned about fish stocking. Their guidance allows for
stocking in larger reservoirs or other politically designated areas. The problem again
is what happens to this activity when the politics change and rainbow trout are viewed
as a non-native exotic species. Lastly, their desire to allow visitors to enjoy a
“soundscape” that is free of human input would make gunshots and chainsaws
problematic at best.
National Park Service Management Policies (click here to
see policies)
NPS Hunting Article (Click here to read article)