This document is contained within the Fish and

Wildlife Management Toolbox on Wilderness.net.

Since other related resources found in this toolbox
may be of interest, you can visit this toolbox by
visiting the following URL:
http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?
fuse=toolboxes&sec=fishwildlifemgmt. All
toolboxes are products of the Arthur Carhart
National Wilderness Training Center.

Managing Fish and Wildlife in Wilderness

Is there a problem?
Is there a question about state
versus federal authority?
What have the courts said?
Has IAFWA helped?

Peter Landres
Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station

CONTEXT: What is Wilderness?

From the 1964 Wilderness Act, wilderness is:
Untrammeled (uncontrolled, not manipulated)
Natural (primeval character and influence)
Undeveloped (evidence of people is substantially
unnoticeable)
Outstanding opportunities for wilderness experiences
(solitude or primitive recreation)
Wilderness is managed:
for the use and enjoymentas wilderness
Wilderness is managed for ecological and social values

CONTEXT: Wildlife and Wilderness

Arctic Wild, Crisler 1958
Great wilderness has two characteristics: remoteness and the
presence of wild animals in something like pristine variety and
numbers.

Wilderness and the American Mind, Nash 1967

Etymologically, the term means wild-dor-ness, the place of
wild beasts.

Wildlife in Wilderness, Hendee and Schoenfeld, 1990

Wilderness without wildlife and wildlife without the freedom
of wilderness are virtually unthinkable, their interdependency
is so firmly established in our minds.

CONTEXT: Need to Manage Wildlife

Increasing use of all types

Increasing region-wide threats and development on adjacent lands
Increasing disruption of ecological processes and loss of species

Is There a Problem Managing

Wildlife in Wilderness?
Conflict over appropriate wildlife management activities
-vehicles, surveys, tagging, marking,
installations, modifying habitat, introducing nonnative species

Spraying rotenone in a wilderness lake

Aerial stocking a wilderness lake

Is There a Problem Managing

Wildlife in Wilderness?
Conflict between state and federal management goals
-- sport versus other wildlife values

Stocking lakes with sport fish

Fish stocking impacts on

Mountain Yellow-Legged frogs

Is There a Problem Managing

Wildlife in Wilderness?
Conflict between state and federal management goals
-- sport versus wilderness values

Recreational fishing opportunities

Fishless, unmanipulated lake ecosystems

Is There a Problem Managing

Wildlife in Wilderness?

Is There a Problem Managing

Wildlife in Wilderness?

Is There a Problem Managing

Wildlife in Wilderness?

What does Research Say About

Impacts from Stocking Fish?
Research has clearly shown:
Significant declines of native fish
Significant declines of amphibians and
salamanders
Significant changes in phytoplankton,
zooplankton, and invertebrates
Significant changes in nutrient processes

Frog abundance in fishless lakes is also reduced

by introduced trout

Ave. Frog Density in

Fishless Sites / Basin

0.20

0.15

0.10

R2 = 0.9793

0.05

0.00
50

60

70

80

90

Percent Lentic Area Occupied by Trout / Basin

100

In the Big Horn Crags, Introduced Fish

Occupy Most Overwintering Sites

Breeding Sites
Summer Habitats
Overwintering Sites
0

.5

Kilometers

Conflict Between State Wildlife and

Federal Wilderness Managers
Examples
Refusal to coordinate planned activities
Refusal to cooperate or share data
Lack of professionalism (us versus them)
Lack of respect
Stalling and stonewalling
Intentional damage
Litigation

Reasons for This Conflict Between

State and Federal Managers
Differing agency mandates, policies, missions, cultures
Arizona Game and Fish Department
To conserve, enhance, and restore Arizonas diverse wildlife
resources and habitat through aggressive protection and
management programs
(Mission Statement)
Forest Service Policy
where a choice must be made between wilderness
valuesor any other activity, preserving the wilderness
resource is the overriding value. Economy, convenience,
commercial value, and comfort are not standards of
management or use of wilderness.
(FSM Section 2320.6)

Reasons for This Conflict Between

State and Federal Managers
Ambiguity, differences in interpreting federal laws
1964 Wilderness Act
except as necessary to meet the minimum requirements for
the administration of the areathere shall be no temporary
roads, no use of motor vehiclesno structure or installation
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the
jurisdiction or responsibilities of the several States with
respect to wildlife and fish in the national forests.

1994 California Desert Protection Act

Management activities to maintain or restore fish and wildlife
populationsshall include the use of motorized vehicles by the
appropriate State agencies.

State versus Federal Authority

States assert their authority under the 10th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution, the Police Powers:
The powers not delegated to the United
Statesare reserved to the states
Federal agencies assert their authority under four different
Constitutional Clauses
-- Property: power to govern property
-- Treaty: power to engage in treaties
-- Commerce: power to regulate interstate
commerce
-- Supremacy: federal law governs if there is conflict

Judicial Interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court

1896 -- Geer v. Connecticut
State authority preempts federal management of wildlife,
and that the right to preserve game flows from the
undoubted existence in the State of a Police Power.

Judicial Interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court

1896 -- Geer v. Connecticut
1920 -- Missouri v. Holland
Upheld federal use of the Treaty Clause (the 1918
Migratory Bird Treaty Act) and Supremacy Clause that
federal law supercedes conflicting state law

Judicial Interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court

1896 -- Geer v. Connecticut
1920 -- Missouri v. Holland
1928 -- Hunt v. United States
Upheld federal use of Property Clause to protect public
land from resident wildlife (deer on the Kaibab NF)

Judicial Interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court

1896 -- Geer v. Connecticut
1920 -- Missouri v. Holland
1928 -- Hunt v. United States
1976 -- Kleppe v. New Mexico
Upheld federal use of Property and Supremacy clauses to
manage wildlife (burros), and that federal management of
wildlife not limited to just protecting public land from
damage as stated in Hunt v. United States

Judicial Interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court

1896 -- Geer v. Connecticut
1920 -- Missouri v. Holland
1928 -- Hunt v. United States
1976 -- Kleppe v. New Mexico
1979 -- Hughes v. Oklahoma
Upheld federal use of Commerce Clause to manage
wildlife, and that Geer v. Connecticut was decided
relatively earlywe hold that time has revealed the
error of the early resolution reached in that case, and
accordingly Geer is today overruled.

Agreement with the International

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Agreement between the FS and BLM with IAFWA
Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife
Management in Wilderness and Primitive Areas
-- approved as FS and BLM policy in 1976
-- substantially revised in 1986
-- reaffirmed by the FS in 1995

IAFWA Agreement
Establishes non-binding guidelines that should
serve as a framework for cooperation between
state and federal agencies
Topics covered in the IAFWA Agreement
Fish and Wildlife research
Facility development and habitat alteration
Endangered and threatened species
Fisheries management
Wildlife management
Visitor management

IAFWA Agreement
A Few Problems
Defines indigenous as
species of fish traditionally
stocked before wilderness
designation...if the species
is likely to survive
No plan for resolving conflicts and differences of opinion
Vague language (preserve the natural character, may be
permitted, identified in the wilderness management plan,
standard techniques of population sampling, mutual
agreement)

Status of the IAFWA Agreement

November 2000 reaffirmation by FS and BLM
followed by formal review of successes and failures
March 2002 proposed revision by FS and BLM
Fisheries Program leaders (DOA to wilderness)
February 2003 proposed addendum by FS,BLM,
some states (DOA to IAFWA)
Currently, unknown what will happen next or how
known problems will be resolved

Resolving These Conflicts Over

Managing Wildlife in Wilderness
Provide understanding about science, legislation, and
judicial decisions that lets each side know their
respective responsibilities and limits
Science clear and wide-ranging impacts
to wilderness values from some wildlife
management activities
Legislation does not give state agencies
sole authority for managing wildlife in
wilderness; doesnt resolve anything
Supreme Court decisions (5) clearly
support federal involvement in wildlife
management decisions and activities

The Bottom Line:

State and Federal agencies share authority for managing
wildlife, therefore they must cooperate, communicate, and
coordinate to sustain both wildlife and wilderness

An Example of Working Together

Natural rockfall in the Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness, CA
blocked listed summer steelhead migration to spawning grounds

After clearing the rockfall