Perspectives from a biologist on the use of the Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness (FS BLM & IAFWA – August 1986) – i.e. IAFWA MOU

Kate Walker – Fish Program Leader, Northern Region

Communication

“Both State and Federal agencies are responsible for fostering mutual understanding and cooperation in the management of fish and wildlife in wilderness” (MOU 23.1-1).

What the MOU does is set up the framework for communication between agencies.

When we use that framework and make the communication happen – great things can happen for all of our resources.

Wilderness is a valuable public resource.

Fish and wildlife are valuable public resources.

The only way to protect all of these valuable public resources is to work together.

As professional resource managers we need to communicate to each other:

Our missions

Our values

Our goals

We need to understand that there may sometimes be conflicts between our missions, our values and our goals. That’s ok – but what isn’t ok is too expect all parties to concede to one mission or another.

We need to work together, find common goals and objectives,identify potential barriers (perceived and real) and come up with solutions for all of our publics!

Regardless of the various interpretations of law, agency policy, and judicial decisions, the only approach that really works is one that is the shared vision of a ‘shoulder to shoulder’ view rather than a ‘face to face’ confrontation.

Ultimate Tool = Wilderness Management Plans

The MOU is only intended to be an interim guide.

Ultimate success is obtained when the agencies work together to incorporate mutual goals in to a specific Wilderness Management Plan.

Several good examples of these plans include:

  • Bob Marshall Complex Wilderness Plan
  • Absorkee Wilderness Plan

Common Areas of Concern:

Motorized Use:

It is often interpreted that Sec.4d(7) of the Wilderness Act “gives” the authority to manage fish and wildlife to the states and therefore the FS has no role in those projects.

A more accurate interpretation is the Wilderness Act didn’t take away anything that the states already had regarding management of F&W populations and that Sec. 1 of the IAFWA MOU clearly does not go beyond Sec. 4c or the Wilderness Act.

The minimum requirements provision still applies and needs to be conducted in a way that satisfies the needs of both the state agencies and the FS to meet common objectives in wilderness.

Fish Stocking:

There is often the perception that stocking of fish is the State agencies decision. However, as detailed in the MOU the activity is done in coordination with the FS or BLM wilderness administration unit (MOU 23.1-8).

Lakes and streams stocked prior to the designation of wilderness can continue to be stocked by the State Agencies.

Any new lakes that have not previously been stocked, may be considered if there is “mutual agreement that no appreciable loss of scientific values or adverse effects on wilderness resources will occur” (MOU 23.1-8).

Fish and Wildlife Research and Management Surveys:

These studies are important tools for State agencies to manage and study fish and wildlife populations.

“…must be conducted so as to preserve the natural character of the wilderness” (MOU 23.1-3).

Close coordination of those surveys is critical to ensuring meeting both wilderness and fish and wildlife management objectives.

Bottom Line:

Communication is the key to better coordination and development of common resource objectives for the management of fish and wildlife resources in wilderness areas.