Site Menu Issues Endangered Species Wetlands Alaska Resources Passport Site Menu top

 
GOOSE HUNTERS IMAGE
Photograph by Joel Sartore
Goose hunters clear the air near the J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge in North Dakota. Hunting is permitted on more than half the nation’s refuges.

 

WHAT'S A WILDLIFE REFUGE FOR?
 
 

CLICK FOR- REFUGE ON THE RANGE
 
CLICK FOR- KEY DEER DILEMMA
 
CLICK FOR BOMBS AND BIGHORNS
 
CLICK FOR- WATER QUALITY
 

That basic question has become the most immediate issue confronting the system today, and the answer will determine how refuge land will be managed in the future.

    As long as the goal of wildlife conservation was not compromised, other uses have been a part of the refuge formula. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has had no quarrel with hunting and fishing–or other outdoor recreation–on refuges where these uses are appropriate. In season, hunters already have access to 274 refuges, and more will soon be opened to them. The hunting community has contributed to the purchase and conservation of wetlands through the Duck Stamp Act of 1934.

    Maintenance and repair of facilities are enormous. In the past decade Congress has added 80 refuges to the system, but the refuges’ annual operating budget ($U.S. 169 million in 1995) has not kept pace with this growth. Now, even as refuges are asked to handle more and more public access, some of these vast holdings are perceived as burdens on taxpayers.

    Some members of Congress have suggested selling off portions of the refuge system. Others have favored opening them up for more public use. In April the House approved a measure introduced by Representative Don Young of Alaska, the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act H.R. 1675, that would redefine the purpose of the refuge system to give recreation, hunting, fishing, and trapping equal status with wildlife conservation. The Young bill would also allow military air exercises or ground maneuvers, already permitted in some refuges, to be expanded to additional sanctuaries. And finally, the measure would allow states to manage refuges.

    Opponents of the measure say it is outrageously misnamed, arguing that if the bill were to become law, refuges would be badly weakened.

    Its defenders counter that environmental groups, who stand almost unanimously against the bill, have exaggerated its potential damage. They hold that the main effect of the bill would be to simply clear up a fuzzy law—to state once and for all the purposes and compatible uses of refuges and to take the decision on what constitutes compatible use out of the hands of individual refuge managers and put it under the control of national policymakers.

    Click on the individual issues at left to learn more about challenges to the refuge system.

 
©1996 National Geographic Society. All rights reserved.

| Issues | Wetlands | Endangered species | Alaska | Resources |

navigation