Valentine National Wildlife Refuge - Comments on Proposal to Revise Area Management Regulations

April 14, 2020. Email sent to three staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including Steve Hicks, project leader.

Valentine NWR was established decades ago in the 1930s for the conservation and management of migratory birds and other wildlife. It was not established so taking can occur associated with killing hunts. It is supposed to be a refuge. The proposed change in regulations is a direct attack on the purpose for refuge establishment and continues a trending diminution of the value of these lands for many essential natural resources.

Preferential regulations seem to be more important to the USFWS than the need to make certain that native flora and fauna continue to occur now and into the future for many generations of enthusiasts of the outdoor sandhills.

Conservation of wildlife should be the primary goal so any decision to increase the taking of wildbirds and furbearers needs to be vehemently opposed. This is a decision that should be derived from local conditions, not the spewing of national statistics as indicated in the federal government documents done by federales that do not even reside in Nebraska making forceful decisions. Quit dealing in the need for shootists to wreak death to native wildlife.

Draft Compatibility Determination for Recreational Hunting

Sustainable management and recreational hunting are two sordid twists in language being used by so-called staff responsible for management while promoting a single intent purpose.

“Refuge Purpose(s): The refuge was established by Executive Order No. 7142, August 14, 1935, “... reserved and set apart ... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.”

Refuge is not a concept. It is the reality as firmly established when the government pushed to acquire multiple private ranch properties for an indicated purpose. It was not created to provide a place where hunting is a primary promotion.

“This plan proposes to open or expand existing migratory bird hunting from 2,721 acres to 28,918 acres.” [page 1]

How was the proposed increase in acres of area of intent determined? How the need determined? Why was not the entire refuge opened? What were the criteria? No information is given on how this was done with public input. It is very noticeable that most of the areas to be opened are readily accessible highways or improved road, thus making access the easiest of many places. Let them hunt, you will not even have to walk very far. Just stop on the road, hop out and shoot!

“Small Game, Upland Game Bird, and Big Game Hunting Plan” [page 1]

Where is this document, apparently issued in 2019, available? What were the USFWS actions to make certain the public was aware of this plan? How was it implemented? This is public information which should be readily available upon request.

“The NWRSAA mandates” [page 2]

So a national federal bureaucrat decides and local USFWS staff just respond to conform to the demand. Any recent decision is superseded by the original documents that indicate the reason why the refuge was established. The original intent is what is most important and essential to direct management efforts.

“Public Review and Comment:” [page 3]

There have been no public meetings on this matter. The public was given only 22 days to deal with the issued documentation. Also, the USFWS has already issued their pending decision in the Federal Register as of April 8. How sordid that the agency cannot wait until comments were received from the public and suitably considered. This whole effort is a perfect example of federales shoving a decision upon the people of the sandhills and area community that enjoy natural resources without taking by hunting.
“Justification: Based on the anticipated biological impacts above and in the Environmental Assessment, it is determined that hunting of resident game and migratory birds on the refuge will not interfere with the wildlife or habitat goals and objectives or purposes for which the refuge was established.”

How was this determination made based upon facts? Not interference! Interference will occur because of the taking by shootists intent on killing wild life for their so-called sport and all of its associated disturbances. Changes with hugely interfere? Present the facts not opinion. Because one dead snipe interferes with its life. Same for waterfowl and prairie chickens. Let the birds die seems to be a mantra of the USFWS. Protection of the refuge birds should reign supreme on a refuge created for their protection.

This document indicates a preference to allow killing of so many special birds!

Draft Environmental Assessment for Small Game, Upland Game Bird and Big Game Hunting

Please explain how a refuge prepared a document because a refuge does not know how to write? This is the attribution indicated on the title page. Who is responsible for the words? Project leader without any attribution is also not suitably proper! Please explain this obvious lack of a local name!

“1.1 Proposed Action The Service is proposing to expand hunting opportunities across the Valentine National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The refuge consists of 72,350 acres total (67,828 open for hunting, 2,721 open to waterfowl hunting, 1,801 closed to hunting [see Figure 1]).” [page 3]

Why is the majority of a national refuge proposed to not be not a refuge? Is there not a limitation of place where wildlife can be taken. Refuge indicates safety. To think that this is actually a refuge is erroneous in multiple ways. Some many birds can appreciate a haven but the managing federales agency has decided that shootists will have their way so they can kill and kill anytime during a “season”, but of course they say it is being done in accordance with state regulations.

“Hunting would be expanded for upland game, big game, and migratory birds on the refuge in accordance with the 1999 Valentine NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).”

These are details from that plan.

“Hunting Objective:

“Provide quality hunting opportunities for waterfowl, deer, prairie grouse, pheasants, dove, and coyote on portions of the Refuge. Limited controlled hunting opportunities for elk will be available if elk are reintroduced to the Refuge.”

“Waterfowl hunting is permitted only in the Watts, Rice, and Duck Lakes areas of the Refuge according to the State's seasons and limits. No counts were made, but it is estimated that about 75 visits were made by duck hunters.

“The Refuge is open to hunting of sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chickens during the State set season that runs from mid-September through December. The Refuge is a popular place for out- of-state, as well as Nebraska, hunters to pursue prairie grouse. Grouse hunters are surveyed via wing collection boxes placed around the Refuge. In 1997, 258 hunter days were recorded through the collection boxes. However, not all hunters participate in the voluntary collection program.

“The Refuge is also open to pheasant hunting during the State set season that runs from the first weekend of November through the end of January. Pheasant hunters made an estimated 100 visits to the Refuge in 1997. This is a large number of hunters considering that bird numbers remain very low.”

There is no indication in the wrongly directed guiding document during historic times that hunting would be permissible for rail, snipe and woodcock. How about partridge? Where are the facts?

Rail occur very rarely in the multitude of bird occurrence report at this publicly owned refuge. Will shootists be allowed to kill King Rail, which are very rare on this land space? Why is that an agency which conveys a mission statement to conserve wildlife resources for citizens of our nation and state is pushing forth a missive of destruction? Virginia Rail, which are regulars on this refuge land, are now facing a visit that can lead to their destruction. How about the ultra rare Black Rail. The same applies to Wilson’s Snipe!

As for the American Woodcock, there is no known record for this species at VNWR. Yet the federal documents issued indicate a season should be opened. Where is the basis of real occurrence for this species’ conservation instead of some decision being made to allow them to be shot? Obviously a decision is being made to kill a rare or phantom species of no known occurrence.

“The primary non-consumptive public use areas of the refuge remain within the Little Hay Wildlife Drive, Fire Tower overlook, and Refuge Kiosks.” [page 7]

How is a kiosk a “non-comsumptive public use” since it is signage. Associated ground is maybe an acre or two.

“We expect the harvest of each of these species to be between 0 to 2 animals per season given the limited suitable habitat or low population numbers within the refuge hunt area. This level of harvest should not have negative effects on the local or the statewide populations of these species.” [table 1]

Rare occurrence is conveyed by findings yet hunters would be allowed to kill any of them during a sanctioned season.

“Given the low number of northern bobwhite quail and gray partridge on the refuge, the number of hunters pursuing these species would be low (less than ten hunters). Incidental take of these birds while hunting other upland game would be estimated at less than one daily bag limit for these species for the year (less than six and less than three, respectively)." [page 13]

What is the population of the so-called "northern bobwhite quail" as derived from facts? Is this some new subspecies that you are indicating as occuring. Having following bird taxonomy for decades, this is a faux indication not based in a reality. There are a very few known occurrences for the area of specificity based upon my bird database for the region. Yet the agency will allow the very few numbers to be killed by shootists.

There is no known record for Gray Partridge in the Valentine Lake District. Yet the regs of some inane fedarales want to open a season. There is absolutely no basis for any decision regarding this species.

“Refuge staff would work in close cooperation with the NGPC in sharing/evaluating/discussing available population and harvest data, making recommendations for regulation changes, and any other actions necessary to ensure that viable populations of resident birds are supported.” [page 13]

How and when and by whom? This is a vague statement with no indication of any reality of agreement or expectation to meet the stated intent.

It needs to be noted that the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission will most likely be supportive of the regulation revisions because they could probably sell more hunting licenses as the state agency can convey there will be a notable increase in hunting opportunities.

“Harvest


The estimated harvest during the 2017/2018 season was lower compared with the five-year average. Mink, raccoon, and opossum showed the greatest decrease (down 64 percent, 36 percent, and 20 percent, respectively). Coyote, muskrat, and bobcat showed an increase compared to the five-year average (up 27 percent, 10 percent, and 7 percent respectively).” [page 14]

What is the basis for these estimated details? Facts are given but there is no attribution. Does it pertain to the world, or maybe just Nebraska, but it is blatantly obvious it does not apply to VNWR since no site specific details are given. Estimates do not suffice.

“Regulated harvest through hunting and trapping seasons is an important management tool needed to control populations and damage that these species can cause.” [page 14]

Has there been any documented damage due to any of these species at VNWR? Indicate the local facts. Estimates convey nothing of any reality.

“Areas of the refuge open to hunting would be increased by about 26,000 acres. Under this alternative, approximately 40 percent of the refuge would be open to hunting with 60 percent of the refuge closed to hunting. The latter would provide 40,000 acres of the refuge where migratory waterfowl would continue to be protected from any hunting pressure and disturbance. This complies with provisions of the refuge’s establishing legislation.” [page 15]

The establishing legislation indicated that the entire refuge be a haven for birds. Now there is an effort to reduce that extent by a rather significant amount. It is absurd how federales twist language. The entire refuge is an inviolate place no matter what some perp in Washington decides. Indicate the language in the original "establishing legislation" that proves it was establishing for any sort of hunting related reason!

“We expect that the harvest of American crows and woodcock would be between zero and two birds due to low interest from hunters (in the case of crows) and low population numbers (in the case of woodcocks). For coots, sora and Virginia rails, common snipe, and American woodcock, we expect that the harvest would be less than the bag limit for each species (15, 10, 8, and 3, respectively).” [page 16]

These are expectations of delusion. The USFWS has no information to provide actual facts whether or not there is even a huntable population. There is no record known that American Woodcock have ever been seen at VNWR.

“Additional hunting opportunities would disperse hunters over a larger portion of the refuge and provide enhanced hunting opportunities. We anticipate that there would be only a small increase in the number of hunters visiting the refuge (two or fewer additional hunters) due to the low population density of north-central Nebraska and abundant public hunting land near the refuge.“ [page 16]

Another statement based upon conjecture not fact. Spread the hunters upon more refuge lands and that means further impacts. Anticipate is an opinion not fact.

“We anticipate minor to moderate beneficial impacts with respect to slight declines in predators of many non-game species; and increased exposure to outdoor experiences that potentially would include observations and educational opportunities related to non-game species.” [page 17]

Anticipation does not convey any sort of reality, but is a vague word being used to promote an agenda. Predators of nongame species? What are they? Perhaps there are predators of non-game species but the given language is tepid at best. The killing of predators will in no way increase the exposure to outdoor experiences. More worthless verbiage. Kill some species and then indicate how that is beneficial to outdoor experiences. Have you heard of the term "balance of nature"?

“Impacts of hunting on listed species, especially using the refuge from September through February, could increase with increased hunting opportunities under the proposed action. However, we would apply mitigation measures mentioned above under this alternative and expect to limit the effects of hunting to acceptable risk levels (minor).” [page 19]

What would be the mitigation measures? When would they be implemented? By whom?

Why wasn’t the very important and iconic Blandings Turtle considered in the EA? More road traffic when the turtles are traveling across the land during autumn movements to find a winter haven might result in greater mortality by these critters getting crushed beneath truck or car wheels. Any lack of consideration for this species is indicative on how this EA is lacking.

“The refuge would continue to engage in habitat management activities during the hunting season to ensure that the refuge meets its other management objective...” [page 25]

What are the management activities that occur during the hunting season? Please indicate the specifics.

“Expanded hunting opportunities could provide improved benefits to the local, regional, and state economy compared to current conditions.” [page 26]

What is the basis for this statement that is given as a fact? This statement needs to be based upon real data not opinion.

“The Service believes that hunting on the refuge would not add significantly to the cumulative impacts of migratory bird management on local, regional, or Central Flyway populations because the percentage likely to be taken on the refuge, though possibly additive to existing hunting takes, would be a very small fraction of the estimated populations.” [page 30]

No decisions should be based upon beliefs. The reality is how the change in regulations will impact local populations which are essential for the overall populations so details need to be specific to VNWR.

Why isn’t the Trumpeter Swan not being considered in the EA? A great expanse of wetland which should be suitable for this species. Few of them are known to occur. This is a species of concern which deserves attention as is has for decades. Will an increase in hunting possibly result in mistaken identity and subsequent deaths? This is an important item which has seemingly been ignored.

Summary

The planned implementation of the indicated regulatory changes is some misdirected missive not based upon any sort of reality and needs to be rejected, now. Make decisions based upon facts not delusional and preferential political actions. The natural resources need to be Number One in importance! There is not even any real indication how management changes might be adapted to nurture populations that will be impacted by further, so supposedly regulated killing. There will be several months during each year when wildlife will be chased so they can be killed for so-called sport.

That a decision has basically already been made with a readily apparent biased view does not respect the input of the public in the process. Any legal maneuver on a federal level should not occur until there is proper consideration given to any public comments. As federales, the USFWS is trampling on the resource and very ready to ignore public comment. There was not even any consideration given to postpone any decisions until a public meeting is properly held at a later time because of this troubling pandemic.

It is very obvious that the measures to be enacted will not be beneficial to the refuge and the reasons for which it was established. For the service to claim it is being done for the sustainability of wildlife populations is a bunch of bureaucratic propaganda. This is simply a ploy to benefit a single group, shootists, some who are like fleas on a hound, pests both not welcomed and not wanted. The preferential attention and consideration being given shows how prejudice is blatantly obvious.

Some associated with a federal whatever service are not focused on sustainable conservation management but will open more lands to the taking of wildlife from refuges that myriads of conservationists consider to be havens for all sorts of flora and fauna. The FWS is absconding the public trust in changing the regulations and simply should not have any role in caring for refuges because of their ignoring the inviolate mandate to ensure an essential resource legacy of all American citizens.

Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge - Comments on Proposal to Revise Area Management Regulations

April 14, 2020. Email sent to three staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service including Steve Hicks, project leader.

Number one is the fact that Fort Niobrara as it is now called was established as a bird refuge more than one century ago. This was the single primary mandate. Refuge indicates it was a safe haven for many sorts of wildbirds including prominent game birds. It is very rare in North America to have a refuge place with such a legacy.

To revise management practices to allow the taking of many birds shows an obvious disrespect to the many people that have worked during the past century to protect the site’s natural values. Current mandates for one special use group should not have any priority over the original intent for this game reserve.

Draft Compatibility Determination for Resident Game and Migratory Bird Hunting

“EO 1461 established Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) on January 11, 1912, as the “Niobrara Reservation . . . a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.” EO 1642 expanded the refuge on November 12, 1913” ... [page 1]

What part of this executive order does US Fish and Wildlife Service staff not understand? It says preserve and the definition of that word is given in any dictionary. This is the initial indicated mandate and later attempts to revise management to enact preferential uses shows a lack of respect to this legacy. Ongoing revisionary efforts continue to divert from the original reasons the preserve was created and as indicated repeatedly by government documents. Late era documents such as those indicated for 1997 and more recently do not supersede the original order, no matter how bureaucrats make interpretations to suit demands made by special interest groups in more recent years.

“The Service is proposing to expand hunting opportunities for resident game and migratory birds on the refuge in accordance with the Fort Niobrara NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.” [page 2]

This is a seemingly false statement as the CCP plan of 1997 has this reference to hunting opportunities: “Hunting Objective: Offer a limited, strictly controlled hunting opportunities for elk and bighorn sheep to facilitate removal of herd excess.” Another statement under a Public Use topic option is: The Refuge is closed to hunting” according to one alternative.

There is apparently nothing in the CCP plan that refers to the hunting of migratory birds. Now it seems to be an essential.
A January, 1998 supplementary document for the refuge CCP, further states: “Preserve, restore and enhance the ecological diversity and abundance of migratory and resident wildlife with emphasis on native birds.” The current status for public use hunting was indicated as being closed. One alternative would be to allow guided hunts for elk, deer, bison and bighorn sheep. Once again, no mention made in regards to wild birds hunting or hunting of furbearers.

“Hunting is allowed in the current open hunt area of the refuge; the NGPC established hunting.” [page 3]

How can the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission establish hunting on a federal refuge? Doubtful statement? Besides, the proposed regulation revisions could probably be beneficial to them through the sale of more licenses as they will have an opportunity to convey there are more hunting opportunities.

“As described above, this alternative will expand hunting opportunities in the current open hunt area on the refuge to include hunting of pronghorn, badger, beaver, bobcat, coyote, fox, longtailed weasel, mink, muskrat, opossum, prairie dog, porcupine, rabbit and hare, raccoon, skunk, squirrel, woodchuck, greater prairie chicken, grouse, partridge, pheasant, quail, turkey, waterfowl, dove, crow, rail, snipe, and woodcock. In addition, the refuge hunting program will better align with NGPC hunting regulations. The potential take of most resident and migratory wildlife species open to hunting on the refuge is likely negligible in proportion to regional or state harvest numbers and will not add significantly to the cumulative effects on the various species.” [page 4]

Refuge management should focus on improving conditions for species locally so they can contribute to population status on a regional or national level. The refuge should not be managed to reduce local numbers based upon regional or national numbers. To manage based upon a larger geographic indicates that local populations can be impacted. If everyone managed on a basis of this intent, local populations could be reduced and eventually populations of a large extent would be impacted and likely reduced. Disingenuous rationale prevails here.

Draft Environmental Assessment for Resident Game and Migratory Bird Hunting

“2.1 Alternatives Considered” [page 5]

The reason for the current actions to expand hunting on the refuge is a direct result of a directive by the Secretary of Interior as determined by news reports. It is seemingly not being done at the request of the NGPC, though they may have made requests previously to which the USFW interpreted as to require some compliance.

“State-permitted shotguns shooting non-toxic shot, archery, and muzzleloader weapons are allowed for badger, bobcat, coot, crow, dark geese, dove, duck, fox, furbearer, greater prairie chicken, grouse, long-tailed weasel, light geese, mink, opossum, partridge, pheasant, quail, rabbit and hare, raccoon, rail, skunk, snipe, squirrel, teal, turkey, woodcock, coyote, porcupine, prairie dog, and woodchuck.” [page 6]

It is a federal decision to allow this hunting. New regulations are obviously being modified to comply with state hunting rules season. The EA seems to try to implicate the state agency as being the source of the requested change.

Why does the environmental assessment not indicate the source of given informational details? Any authoritative details need to be attributed to a credible source.

Table 1 indicates a completely problematic potentiality: “Given the near of the refuge’s hunt area to the City of Valentine and limited availability of other public lands in area, we would expect a possible 50 percent reduction in the existing wild turkey population and 50 percent reduction in the northern bobwhite population within the hunt area. Gunfire and associated hunter activity would disrupt bird activity and likely cause dispersal.”

What does “given the near of the refuge’s” statement mean? No decision can be made on these words because they are nonsensical, and which makes the entire statement erroneous.

This is not managed hunting but a decimation. There is no sustainability indicated here. A 50% reduction! Just extirpate local populations. Certainly there are lots of wild turkeys locally, but that does not mean there should be a diminution that could lead to an overall population decline, and which might be detrimental to adjacent landowners.

As for Northern Bobwhite, there is only a limited population in the local area. This is based on particular, documented records of occurrence for Valentine and its immediate vicinity, including just south of FNNWR. To reduce the population to the extent indicated would be a travesty. The proposed alternative has nothing to do with sustainability though the mis-named purpose for sustainability was given in a press release announcing this of a change as issued in public newspapers and online. The expected outcome would be one of the worse instances ever seen locally in regards to acceptable wildlife management practices. Management intents are meant to maintain or increase population of a species … not destroy a local population. Quail deserve protection not destruction.

There are no known records for the Grey Partridge on the refuge. There is only one instance of occurrence in the local region along the Niobrara River of Cherry county and that is from 1982. It is not acceptable for so-called managers of a bird preserve to allow shooting of a particular bird type that is so rare, and actually unexpected. There needs to be a prohibition on hunting this species.

As for the American Woodcock, there is a single known instance on the refuge from 2006 near Buffalo Bridge and in the wilderness area by a bird watcher of intent. Including this species would be another instance where the changes to promote hunting could destroy the very rare occurrence locally. There needs to be a prohibition on hunting for this species.

The environmental assessment is not adequate as it does not even the majestic Trumpeter Swan. It is a species of concern and can occur at the refuge ponds, just to the east at a local pond on private property and also along the Niobrara River. This shows another instance how the EA is not acceptably adequate.

An increase in hunting of game birds can result in accidental killing by hunters. Mistakes are made in the moments when birds flush, resulting in a wrong shot. Hunters will not say anything about this but just ignore it and continue to find a suitable target. This is another reason that there should be no increase in wildbird hunting at Fort Niobrara NWR, a supposed refuge.

What is a “hare” referred to in the proposal. There are no hares in Cherry county nor in Nebraska. This is another false indication given in the indication for a pending regulation change.

There is no indication given for the potential impact of taking by hunting of furbearers. How will the local population be affected? No details given indicate conjecture. This is no acceptable in making any suitable evaluation for the pending regulations.

“While effects to wilderness values and character would be expected to increase because of expanded hunting opportunities and no longer requiring a refuge access permit, refuge visitors would still be required to abide by wilderness area rules, such as the prohibition of motorized vehicles and bicycles.” [page 19]

Effects expected and they would be more than temporary. No passive hiking during hunting season because of the noise and honestly, the threat of being shot. A bird watcher on a hike should not need to wear a hunter orange vest and cap. The expected decision would continue the decline in features of this special area as officially recognized and designated. Once again, refuge management continues the ruination of a place where particular values were known more than a century ago.

A doubling of the number of hunters [page 21]. This would mean reasons for visitors appreciating other recreational activities would be diminished.

“As a result, changes or additions to hunting on the refuge would have minor effects on migratory birds in Nebraska. Although the proposed action alternative would increase hunting opportunities compared to the current action alternative, the slight increase in hunter activity would not rise to a significant level.” [page 30]

This statement is based upon opinion. If there are one or two American Woodcock on the refuge and both are killed by a blast from a shotgun, it would be a long time until a single view of this beautiful bird might be seen again by a bird watcher or someone on a hike. The result does not conform with the requisite bird preserve mandate.

“Expanded hunting opportunities on the refuge could alleviate hunting pressure to wildlife populations on nearby public lands.” [page 31]

Is this a comment based not on fact but rather presumption? What are nearby hunting lands where there are Greater Prairie-Chicken within ten miles? Birds have a home range and upon which they are dependent for their survival. To what other public land species does this apply.

Are these state or federal property? The nearest federal property is miles away so the USFWS seems to want to start making decisions that will influence state or private property where they have no basis for decision making.

“The Service would work with the NGPC to use an adaptive management approach for the hunting program on the refuge.” [page 31]

Hunting has an immediate impact. How shooting sport relate to management is another faux statement. Climate change is related to habitat management, not recreational activities, though of course all facets of concern need to be considered in detail. The EA provides statements which are grasping for pertinence but are included to just convey required regulatory requirements.

“3.4 Mitigation Measures and Conditions Refuge staff would work in close cooperation with the NGPC to share, evaluate, and discuss available population and harvest data, make recommendations for regulation changes, and take any other actions necessary to make sure that viable populations of resident and migratory game species are maintained on the refuge.”

When and how? Statements of this sort need to indicate what is to happen and when. When will the details for this be provided to the public? How has the NGPC said that they agree to this precept.

“3.5 Monitoring inventory and monitoring of wildlife and their habitats would be done on the refuge in conjunction with our state and federal partners.”

Did the refuge staff conduct a migratory bird survey in 2019? When have surveys been done so that information can be indicated that the service is actually doing the survey they claim are being done? Does a survey once every five or ten years suffice?

Please provide further details on the 2018 consultation with NGPC on their request for more hunting opportunities on service lands? Show the facts.

Summary

The proposed regulatory changes should be rejected in their entirety. The proposal as personally considered does not indicate any respect for the legacy of the Niobrara Game Reserve created so long ago by people with vision.

If management trends continue, it seems that the USFWS should bring in center-pivot systems because then maybe could increase populations of preferred species so there can be more taking through hunting. Maybe plant some corn fields to attract pheasants or deer and maybe some elk. Deplorable options.

The proposed change in regulations would open land to taking while other decisions have been made to prevent bird watchers from taking a hike because some refuge spaces are closed to the public. Why? The word that might apply here is paradox.
There has already been enough diminution of the wildbird resources and other natural values through recent years at this first of bird refuges in the U.S.A.

When will the USFWS get back to the basics and take a long-term view that conforms to the original intent of the refuge? It is a necessity that should now be the norm, but alas it is not.

Respect the legacy is impossible since the USFWS has already decided what is going to happen according to information in the Federal Register. The situation is indicative how the agency proclaims a mission statement which does not reflect reality because of false language.
Regulatory action to promote more taking by hunting needs to be delayed until public hearings can be held. It is not acceptable that the proposed changes for the regulations are already issued in the federal register before public comments have been considered.

The USFWS federales are forcing changes based upon false statements and lack of essential consideration.

Birds are a public asset and of great importance. To let some bureaucrats make decisions about our feathered friends is not acceptable because there is too much politics going on. How wrong!

That a decision has basically already been made with a readily apparent biased view does not respect the input of the public in the process. Any legal maneuver on a federal level should not occur until there is proper consideration given to any public comments. As federales, the USFWS is trampling on the resource and very ready to ignore public comment. There was not even any consideration given to postpone any decisions until a public meeting is properly held at a later time because of this troubling pandemic.

It is very obvious that the measures to be enacted will not be beneficial to the refuge and the reasons for which it was established. For the service to claim it is being done for the sustainability of wildlife populations is a bunch of bureaucratic propaganda. This is simply a ploy to benefit a single group, shootists, some who are like fleas on a hound, pests both not welcomed and not wanted. The preferential attention and consideration being given shows how prejudice is blatantly obvious.

Some associated with a federal whatever service are not focused on sustainable conservation management but will open more lands to the taking of wildlife from refuges that myriads of conservationists consider to be havens for all sorts of flora and fauna. The FWS is absconding the public trust in changing the regulations and simply should not have any role in caring for refuges because of their ignoring the inviolate mandate to ensure an essential resource legacy of all American citizens.

John W. and Louise Seier National Wildlife Refuge - Comments on Proposal to Revise Area Management Regulations

April 14, 2020. Email sent to three staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service including Steve Hicks, project leader.

Number one, why would a 2400 acre refuge that has been closed for public use for a multitude of years and still is, allow hunting but not other recreational pursuits including bird watching, photography, hiking, perhaps scientific research, etc. A changed situation for one group would obviously be discriminatory and violate my civil rights as a citizen.

The public has been prohibited to visit public property since the US Fish and Wildlife Service took control has failed in its management by not preparing a site management plan to allow multiuse activities. Yet the agency goes through the process for a single special use.

Draft Compatibility Determination for Hunting on John W. and Louise Seier National Wildlife Refuge

“’The refuge was established pursuant to The John W. and Louise Seier Living Trust. The primary purpose of the refuge is “. . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources . . .” (16 U.S. Code a 742fl:[a][4]) ‘. . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services.” [page 1]

This is an indicative comment of error as the refuge was not established to the benefit of the USFWS but for the benefit of the natural resources of sandhills land held in trust for the American public.

“The purpose of this proposed action is to provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on the refuge. The need of the proposed action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife dependent recreational uses” (16 U.S. Code 668dd[a][4]). [page 2]

“Direct impacts on refuge populations of some species (for example, turkey and deer) will not be known until the hunting program is implemented.”

These impacts should be known before they occur. This is a key tenet to prevent any unwanted consequences and threats to natural resources.

Draft Environmental Assessment for Hunting on the John W. and Louise Seier National Wildlife Refuge

“The Service is proposing to open hunting opportunities for game species on the John W. and Louise Seier National Wildlife Refuge (Seier NWR) in accordance with the refuge’s conceptual management plan.” [page 3]

There is no management plan yet the USFWS has decided to open the area for hunting. There has been no public input on the management of a property donated for public uses of the area yet a federal edict will now be issued to benefit a select group. Proper decisions are not based upon some conceptual nothing.

“1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

“The purpose of this proposed action is to provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on Seier NWR. The need of the proposed action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSAA to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the Refuge System for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses” (16 U.S. Code 668dd[a][4]).” [page 5]

Once again compatible uses are more than hunting. Birding and other recreational pursuits cannot be appreciated if the public is prohibited from any appreciation of a place donated to the USFWS for public enjoyment. The service ignoring multiple uses indicates their lack of attention to all compatible recreational uses.

“Mitigation Measures to Avoid Conflicts:

“Because the refuge is not currently open to any public use, opening the refuge to hunting would not conflict with other uses.” [page 6]

How it is being opened to hunters only is sordidly shown by this statement.

Elk and antelope occurrence. These two species might be a wildlife value to the refuge, but though transient. Allowing hunting could effectively remove these species from the local landscape.

Wild Turkey hunting could also have a detrimental impact on this species. A decision is being made without any details given for the extent of occurrence of this wildbird in the local area.

A table shows the estimated extent of furbearers or migratory birds that would be taken by hunting are minimal to sport hunters [pages 13-14]. For this reason, there should be no hunting in order to retain the conservation integrity of the refuge.

“Therefore, we consider that opening the refuge to migratory bird hunting would not significantly affect the overall migratory bird populations at the flyway and national levels.” [page 14]

Hunting of waterfowl would dramatically alter the species occurrence and distribution on the refuge when hunting events occurred.

It would also have a significant and potentially ongoing disturbance factor.

“Overall, hunting impacts on other wildlife and their habitats and impacts on the biological diversity of the refuge would be insignificant.” [page 16]

This is an opinion. There are no factual details given in the environmental assessment on the direct impacts at the refuge! Who is the arbitrator on insignificant? It certainly should not be the USFWS because they are making the decision. There needs to be an independent consideration!

“American burying beetles probably occur on the refuge. They are seemingly common in the Nebraska Sandhills.” [page 16]

This comment of opinion once again shows how little the USFWS understands the biotic resources present on Seier refuge and how they can be best managed. Probably is an opinion not fact.

“We anticipate a few hundred hunter use days per year to start. This number may go up, but due to the small size of the refuge, hunter presence would decrease the abundance of huntable game. Because the open hunt area is highly visible and is otherwise off-limits all year to other members of the public, allowing hunters may cause a perception of favoritism for one user group over another. This could be alleviated in the future, if necessary, by opening the area to the general public for other uses such as photography, wildlife observation, and interpretation.” [page 19]

No kidding. Favoritism is obviously being shown. Let hunters visit but not other people interested in a variety of other sorts of outdoor recreation. This is blatant and deplorable preferential treatment that can only be called prejudice.

“The addition of hunting under this alternative would likely benefit the state and local economy through revenues generated by hunter lodging, food, gas, and miscellaneous purchasing.” [page 21]

Minimal hunting visits are projected, yet rather than focus on local economic impact statewide figures are given. What is the threshold for minimal as an earlier statement said few hundred, which is not minimal.

Since the refuge has been closed to the public there is no opportunity for passive uses to contribute to the local economy if people want to walk the prairie and enjoy the creek places. Once again selective bias on the information presented is dramatically obvious.

“The Service believes that hunting on the refuge would not add significantly to the cumulative impacts of migratory bird management on local, regional, or Central Flyway populations.” [page 22]

This is an opinion that once again shows bias. No land management decision should be based on beliefs. The agency does not have any information to indicate in any manner how the refuge might contribute to local bird populations. Is there a heron rookery? Are Dickcissels ample in number? Do snipe find it to be a haven? Do bobolink raise young and contribute to the species’ numbers because the meadows are not mown? How does the service know there are an adequate number of woodcock to support hunting? The same focus can be applied to other species, including prairie grouse.

“Research has shown that lead can be present in gut piles left by deer hunters after field dressing. Bald eagles and other raptors feed on the gut piles and may ingest the lead, leading to poisoning.” [page 23]

Use of lead ammunition should never occur on a wildlife refuge for the reason herewith indicated and perhaps others.

“The Service would adjust the hunting program as necessary to ensure that it would not contribute further to the cumulative impacts of climate change on resident wildlife and migratory birds.” [page 24]

Another comment with no basis. How and when would this occur? Annually or in five years? In ten years? This is another statement not based upon a factual statement by the USFWS.

Hunting and furbearer harvest is also based upon estimates of conjecture and not factual. Why?

“We anticipate that this action” [alternative A] “would have minimal impacts on the refuge. The potential take of most resident and migratory wildlife species open to hunting on the refuge is likely negligible in proportion to regional or state harvest numbers and would not add significantly to the cumulative effects on the various species. [page 25]

Once again, an opinion not based on facts is indicated. Anticipate is an unknown and/or vague concept with no actual details of factual reality presented to support the claim. The impact on local bird occurrence would be much more than “negligible” and could reduce some populations in the long term.

Summary

Respect the refuge and its resources. The Seiers should not have given their ranch to the USFWS because their expectations have not been met and are now being disrespected by federal bureaucrats. A number one reason for this special refuge is not being met. And yes, I have visited the place to bird watch before the federales closed the place to the public should be able to appreciate the eastern sandhills refuge space.

That a decision has basically already been made with a readily apparent biased view does not respect the input of the public in the process. Any legal maneuver on a federal level should not occur until there is proper consideration given to any public comments. As federales, the USFWS is trampling on the resource and very ready to ignore public comment. There was not even any consideration given to postpone any decisions until a public meeting is properly held at a later time during this troubling pandemic time.

It is very obvious that the measures to be enacted will not be beneficial to the refuge and the reasons for which it was established. For the service to claim it is being done for the sustainability of wildlife populations is a bunch of bureaucratic propaganda. This is simply a ploy to benefit a single group, shootists, some who are like fleas on a hound, pests both not welcomed and not wanted. The preferential attention and consideration being given shows how prejudice is blatantly obvious.

Some associated with a federal whatever service are not focused on sustainable conservation management but will open more lands to the taking of wildlife from refuges that myriads of conservationists consider to be havens for all sorts of flora and fauna. The FWS is absconding the public trust in changing the regulations and simply should not have any role in caring for refuges because of their ignoring the inviolate mandate to ensure an essential resource legacy of all American citizens.

Dark Sky Reserve Would be a Boon to Cherry County

August 7, 2019. Dark sky reserve would be a boon. Valentine Midland News 48(11): 14. Letter to the editor.

Dear Editor,

The vividly dark skies of the sandhills are dramatically obvious upon looking above and a prime reason why the annual Nebraska Star Party is held at Merritt Reservoir in Cherry County. This is also why there is an effort underway to establish an internationally recognized dark sky park at the reservoir.

This is a wonderfully laudable goal.

Recognition of the dark skies of the region can also be expanded to the adjacent Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest which comprises 116,000 acres of Forest Service property. It is a perfect setting of dark skies above predominant prairie and some groves of planted trees. This place seemingly has only a single light associated with the former ranger station. There are improved roads that provide great access. Camping is available at the Steer Creek campground and there are facilities for horses so it is well suited to outdoor recreation.

Adjacent properties that could contribute to the recognition area include Anderson Bridge WMA (137 acres) and Chat Canyon WMA (418 ac.). At the northeast corner of the forest is a tract of Bureau of Educational Lands and Funds comprising 7600 acres that is leased for cattle grazing.

No lights at any of these spaces.

To the east are parcels associated with the Snake River Preservation Group, the Prairie Club and The Ranch golf courses which might also be considered.

There are also nearby large ranch expanses that could perhaps be included?

Designation of these various locales as a combined dark sky reserve would be a boon to Cherry County and a simply wonderful addition to tourism resources that are an obvious economic benefit. This is a unique opportunity.

Sky watching can be really fun is someone is interested in watching meteor showers while enjoying the night-view of constellations or to get a really fine view of super moons rising above a native prairie or a pine-clad vantage in the Niobrara valley.

Site Management for Missouri River Wildlands to Revert to Corps

Mitigation lands along the Missouri river are being returned to management by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Following the Corps purchase of five areas along the Missouri River, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission agreed to be responsible for active management. The sites include William Gilmour/Tobacco Island south of Plattsmouth, Hamburg Bend in Otoe County as well as Kansas Bend, Upper Brownville Bend and Langdon Bend in Nemaha County.

Staff at the Corps Missouri River Project Office north of Omaha will be responsible for area management on October 1, 2019. The Corps has established many additional mitigation areas associated with the Missouri River.

“We plan to make the management change as transparent as possible,” said Larry Janis, recreation and natural resource branch chief with the Corps. There may be some difference in the area roadways and grassland management practices. A significant item prompting the change was that current Nebraska agricultural agreements would not allow “trade services to be done with local entities,” he said.

NGPC has managed some of these sites for more than 20 years, or since the 1990s, according to Pat Molini, assistant division administrator for the agency. The agency also owns other properties, including the Peru Bottoms WMA. “These sites are special places for birds along the river.”

There are currently no planned changes in management responsibilities at the five areas including no expected dramatic change in the outdoor activities available – including bird watching, fishing, hiking, hunting and nature study – on these public lands. Similar areas are owned and managed on the Iowa side of the river by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

Camping will continued to not be allowed. Collecting of any flora and fauna is also not allowed.

Further information on Omaha District mitigation areas associated with the Missouri River is available at the Missouri River Recovery Program website.

September Survey of Lakeland Wildbirds

It had been many years since the numerous lakes and wetlands in the Lakeland district of southwest Brown county had been visited so the gathering of Nebraska birders and knowing that they would visit the district prompted a Saturday outing on September 15th. It was a morning with fog prevalent, but reaching the first locale of Clear Lake at 8 a.m., conditions for observing wildbirds on the lakes became okay. Each site was visited and records kept for each during the primary observation time of two hours. Two spotting scopes as individually used were essential for getting distant views during a fine birding outing. After noon, white cap waves and heat shimmer occurred as conditions deteriorated for bird watching activities.

This is a list of the placenames in their entirety as used for personal database record keeping. Sites are listed in the order visited:

• Clear Lake, Philbrick Lake Quadrangle; permission to take a look around provided by a cabin owner mowing the lawn as he wanted chores done before the start of the Big Red football game.
  
• Chain Lakes, Koshopah NE Quadrangle; a series of three lakes that can be readily viewed from a distance from a vantage point or two along the county road to the south of the lakes.
  
• Willow Lake Brown County WMA; numerous gulls were floating in the center of the lake but their distance made it difficult to determine identifications, but general characteristics indicated that the majority were the same species. Further observations by the NOUers added records of occurrence for additional species, during and after the lunch break. The latrine structure here was decrepit and people present had to wander into the trees and grass to take care of business. This place can be a nice place to camp or visit but the lack of attention to an essential and necessary maintenance — especially of the latrine — by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission diminishes any appreciation. At least the picnic tables were not anchored so they could be moved together so the group could congregate and talk among ourselves.
  
• Enders Lake
  
• Enders Basin; the depth of water was exceptionally greater than had ever been observed, with the usual shallow water channel between this lake and Enders Lake several feet underwater. There was no shorebird habitat present as has been appreciated during multiple previous visits.
  
• Schoolhouse Marsh; prominently open water with associated species mostly along its western upland extent.
  
  
• Long Lake, Philbrick Lake Quadrangle; along the drive along the south side of the lake and towards the recreation area, there were hundreds of Monarch butterflies gathered in the cedar trees, and were getting active in the sunshine during our passage along the trail road. It was an amazing sight to see them gathered on the foliage or as bunches in short airborne flights dramatic in contrast against the blue sky.
  
• Long Lake SRA; visited after an intrusion through the yard of the resident rancher that knows that people can drive through his yard anytime as they traverse an indicated route to the state property.
  
• Philbrick Lake; water birds not present.
  
• AGA Marsh WMA (American Game Association Marsh WMA, which is one of the earliest designated wildlife management areas in the state of Nebraska); butterflies were also prevalent and some of the NOUers took pictures but their attempt was not something of any significance but at least they tried to get a photographic memory.
  
• Philbrick Valley Meadow
  
• Clapper Lake; only very obvious species as seen from a distance.
  

There was a dearth of waterfowl with the most significant sighting being five Trumpeter Swan at AGA Marsh WMA which included a pair and a large cygnet. Ducks were most often associated with small, ephemeral wetlands alongside county roads. The big flock of Wild Turkey were at the Wales Ranch, on the southern edge of AGA Marsh WMA. Pelicans and cormorants were common, with the latter species most numerous roosting on snags at Enders Basin and Willow Lake.

The prevalence of Bald Eagle may be indicative that the species nests in the Lakeland District? A special observation was a bunch of Killdeer gathered in a small area of recently mowed meadow in Philbrick Valley. In a tree a short distance eastward, was where the many crow were gathered.

Three of the best sightings were the Common Loon, Say's Phoebe and Great Egret. There were several places were flighty sparrows provided only an instant view and then disappeared into the autumn vegetation. Tree snags at Long Lake SRA were an obvious attraction the eight flickers seen.

This is a list of the 52 species observed, with 49 observed by Gordon Warrick and myself and an additional three species subsequently reported by people on the Nebraska Ornithologists' Union outing. Place names have been condensed for space purposes.

Proper Name	Clear Lake	Chain Lakes	Willow Lake	Enders Lake	Enders Basin	Schoolhouse Marsh	Long Lake	Long Lake SRA	Philbrick Lake	AGA Marsh WMA	Phibrick Valley Meadow	Clapper Lake
Canada Goose	9	- -	9	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Trumpeter Swan	5	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Wood Duck	7	6	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	10	- -
Blue-winged Teal	- -	- -	- -	6	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Mallard	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	3	- -	- -
Wild Turkey	12	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -
Common Pheasant	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -
Common Loon	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Pied-billed Grebe	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Horned Grebe	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1
Western Grebe	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	3	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	4
Great Blue Heron	3	3	- -	- -	1	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1
Great Egret	- -	- -	2	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
American White Pelican	2	28	11	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	18
Double-crested Cormorant	1	- -	- -	- -	62	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	49
Turkey Vulture	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1
Sharp-shinned Hawk	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -
Cooper's Hawk	1	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Northern Harrier	2	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Bald Eagle	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	1
Red-tailed Hawk	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -
American Coot	2	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Killdeer	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	19	3	1
Wilson's Snipe	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	3
Franklin's Gull	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	3
Ring-billed Gull	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	35
Forster's Tern	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Black Tern	- -	3	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1
Mourning Dove	- -	- -	5	20	- -	12	21	20	- -	1	- -	2
Great Horned Owl	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	2	- -	- -
Belted Kingfisher	- -	1	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	1
Red-headed Woodpecker	- -	3	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1
Northern Flicker	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	8	1	- -	1	- -	1
American Kestrel	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	1
Say's Phoebe	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Eastern Kingbird	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	2	- -	- -	- -	- -
Blue Jay	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	3	- -	1	- -	- -
American Crow	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	32	- -	- -
Black-capped Chickadee	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	2	- -	- -	- -	- -
Barn Swallow	6	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	5	- -	- -	- -	- -
Marsh Wren	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -
White-breasted Nuthatch	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -
Common Starling	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Eastern Bluebird	- -	- -	- -	2	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
American Robin	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
American Goldfinch	1	4	- -	2	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Western Meadowlark	- -	5	3	2	- -	3	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	5
Red-winged Blackbird	4	75	- -	3	- -	- -	- -	10	- -	5	- -	20
Common Grackle	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	4	1	- -	- -	- -	- -
Song Sparrow	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -
Chipping Sparrow	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	6	- -	- -	- -	- -
Lark Sparrow	- -	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	2	- -

This survey was done in conjunction with the autumn meeting of the NOU at Ainsworth. Their group arrived in the Lakeland area at 11 a.m. and then visited four particular locales within the Lakeland area: AGA Marsh, Enders Lake and Enders Basin as observed from the county road, and then lunch at Willow Lake Brown County WMA. Additional records were kept along Moon Lake Road and a wetland east of the Calamus River crossing on the county road towards Highway 7. There were many ebird checklists submitted by attendees at this meeting and the overall tally was reported as 134 species.

---

Situations Noted in Association with Lakeland Ranch

The following details were provided to officials at the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission on September 17th.

This email is in regards to several items noted during the weekend in association with the Moon Lake Wildlife Sanctuary (a.k.a. Moonlake Wildlife Ranch) at Lakeland, southwest Brown County..

Item 1:

When trying to visit South Twin Lake WMA the morning of September 15, the access road was blocked by a large gate at the boundary of the MLWS. There were two chains with a padlock on each which obviously prevented any further travel. The attached photographs show the signage on the gate and adjacent fence as well as other signs, including one indicating this was a public access trail to the WMA.

How is it that the landowner can prevent access to public property? When will this situation be changed so the WMA can be readily visited? The landowner seems to think they can keep out the public, but this is simply wrong and needs to be immediately corrected!

Also, the public access signs need to be replaced with signage in proper condition to convey that the trail is a public travelway. I have visited this area multiple times in the past, and want to visit it again in the near future.

Item 2:

In the photo showing the portion of the gate and adjacent fence, it is obvious that the wire mesh fence extends from ground level to 7 or 8 feet in height. This type of fencing extends along the entire perimeter of the MLWS here and as also noted at the primary gate to the ranch headquarters. The character of the fence does not allow any ingress or egress by larger mammals including white-tailed deer, coyote and antelope. The landowner has effectively fenced out a portion of natural range of these species, while the fence also does not allow any natural movement of these species.

How is it that the landowner can effectively "take" a public resource ... that being the large mammals trapped within the fenced ranch area?

Item 3

The landowner has introduced prairie dogs, as evident on an aerial photograph showing the large residence on the south side of the fish pond. There are multiple burrows present. Does the landowner need to have NGPC permission to introduce this species onto private property?

When Audubon of Kansas introduced prairie dogs at the Hutton Ranch, they had to go through approval by NGPC as evident by the public meeting which I attended some years ago.

Item 4

With the MLWS completely fenced and any access inhibited by locked gates, how will NGPC ensure that quick and ready access is available if there is a need to fight a prairie fire in the vicinity of the WMA. This also applies to access that would be needed by any local fire department.

Item 5

How is the NGPC making sure that livestock associated with the MLWS do not go through the South Twin WMA fencing and graze the area? There are likely bison on the adjacent range, and a barb wire fence is not sufficient to stop their movement. Is the vehicular access point to the area suitably fenced or have a barrier to make certain livestock of the adjacent property owner cannot get onto the site. It is only through agency vigilance as well as that of the public that the area can be monitored to ensure its quality.

Personal Tribute to Marvin Vanderploeg

The local wildbirds along the Niobrara River south of Valentine have lost a great friend. Marvin Vanderploeg appreciated many sorts of wild animals and acted with his family to establish a natural lands reserve. Marvin had a personal bird refuge to traverse and notably enjoy looking about a place filled with wildlife activities. When home, he kept a watch outside some windows where he could readily see and appreciate bird activity.

A favorite spot for Marvin to watch bird activity was from a comfortable chair in the sun-room on the south side of the house, where binoculars were always close-at-hand. Notable bird books were handy and there were other mementos of the years where various pursuits associated with wildbirds were his favorite endeavor. Outside the windows was a pond and bird feeder. He could watch the colorful Wood Ducks fly into the pond, something he said he especially appreciated. Other waterfowl were seen. A local herd of White-tailed Deer were regular visitors. Near another side of the house, grain was provided to the many Wild Turkey that roamed the valley. In the marsh near the river, Trumpeter Swan were a special breeding season resident. A pair of magnificent Bald Eagle have nested for years at the haven, and they are undoubtedly now actively protecting eggs nestled deep amidst the sticks of a well-known nest atop a pine tree.

Each time when talking with Marvin, it was a pleasure to visit with a bird enthusiast, especially someone that has traveled to places around the globe just to see some new avian species. During my first visit to the ranch in June 2006, he gave a personal tour of a place where land was being managed for the benefit of so many sorts of flora and fauna. Dollars were being spent to conserve land features, notably removal of invasive cedar trees and occasional controlled burns to improve prairie conditions. There is no known comparable oak-savannah forest anywhere in the central Niobrara Valley, other than at the floodplain terrace of the Niobrara River at the Vanderploeg Ranch. That is undoubtedly why there is a NRCS conservation easement on a portion of the property.

The Vanderploeg Ranch is such a distinctly unique space. River, woods and prairie are essential habitats. Many people have recognized this and came to visit. In addition to the particular records of waterfowl at the pond as kept by Marvin in his personal hand-written words in notebooks, there are details given in various reports about the ranch flora and fauna because access was graciously provided. Many visitors have depicted significant finds. I have never heard anyone have any disparaging comments about their visit, instead they have enjoyed a distinctive visit, because Marvin was such a gracious host.

A most recent personal visit was in mid-February for the Great Backyard Bird Count. I am thankful to have had a “final” chat with Marvin as he sat comfortably, while individually battling health issues, but could still see a variety of wildbirds visiting the taken-care-of feeders, where birds actively appreciated the seed feed. The best two birds of the day were Common Redpoll, actively eating at the bird feeder.

Because of a sense of awareness this ranch grew to and became a special space. As a bird enthusiast and conservationist, Marvin Vanderploeg represents a legacy so notably unique in the Niobrara River valley. This great American may be gone but he shall not be forgotten. I will miss the man because he so much appreciated the wildbirds. His thoughts, as personally heard, resonated to features that comprise an essential core of nature within Cherry county and the Niobrara River valley.

Tree cutters the Ross Brothers and Marvin Vanderploeg at the ranch. March 15, 2016.

Federal Agency Acts Without Public Consideration on Permits to Take Burying Beetles

A email received on August 7th indicates that the Nebraska Public Power District continues to impose their demands on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Details presented by an agency biologist, indicate the federal agency has allowed further harassment of the American Burying Beetle along the corridor of the proposed r-project. Trapping of the little beetles was permitted even as FWS is reviewing a supposed final version of a document allowing incidental take of the species.

How can there be any sort of valid review of a permit request while the requesting agency is still gathering information?

The federal agency has acted without public consideration as they issued permits to allow the taking of the endangered American Burying Beetle along Highway 83, notably in Thomas county. The activity is related to "research" associated with the r-project.

The permits allows the beetles to be trapped, then actively handled, based upon decisions by the controlling federal agency.

In regards to this activity, the federal agency should instead be known as the Federal Whatever Service (FWS).

The FWS once again agreed to permit requests with a seeming disregard to the beetles or the area landowners. Who gave the FWS the authority to make decisions without public comment on a natural lands species?

Consider these pertinent points:

Did the FWS notify landowners of the real-time activities associated with the allowed permit activities? Did NPPD? Nope.

Did the Nebraska Department of Roads give permission for anyone to place beetle traps along the Highway 83 right-of-way? Are any traps being placed along the highway? Is there any public information readily available on these essential detail? Nope.

Did the FWS provide details on the areas where survey activity will occur? Nope.

Did the FWS provide any details on the period of time during which the surveys will occur? Nope.

Did the FWS provide any details on the purpose of the surveys? Nope.

Has the FWS provided any details on the survey methods, notably the number of plastic buckets that will be used, and the frequency of them being checked? Nope.

Has the FWS provided any information on how the results of the surveys will be made available to the public? Nope.

Has the FWS provided details of the permit and how there will be a limit on mortality of the beetles and what is being done to ensure that there are very few or no beetle deaths? Nope.

Do the issued FWS permits include a clause indicating how the permitted activity does not allow access to private property except with landowner permission? Were any details about this provided to the public? Nope.

Did the FWS explain why permits were issued not only to a consultant hired by NPPD and an Oklahoma university as well? Nope. Why do two entities need permits for "so-called" scientific research associated with a single purpose? Has an explanation been provided by anyone? Nope.

Has the FWS indicated the expertise of the permittees and how they have the qualifications to handle an beetle listed as an species? Nope. If non-resident people are going to intrude into the sand hills, they certainly need to know what they are doing and be doing it in an efficient and nonintrusive manner!

Did the FWS indicate a date of application for these permits, and an issuance date? Nope. Why was there no public notice, and not even a known press release?

Why does the FWS give a permit to NPPD minions to "harass" every single captured beetle? The permit apparently allows this harassment, i.e., a taking instance to occur every time a beetle is handled! This is direct intrusion and the actual effect on species once released is not known.

NPPD has already applied for an incidental take permit for the American Burying Beetle, so why are they collecting data now? They should not be applying for a permit until after thorough research has been completed!

The Fish and Wildlife Service has given permits to allow NPPD to get further details to buttress why they should be able to construct the r-project industrial powerline. If they can indicate a broader range or greater numbers, then the projected impact can be lessened to improve the rationale for getting an incidental take permit.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is using the endangered species classification of the beetle as a means of control. Through this classification they can tell everyone how they have to deal with the species. It is as if they are "owners" of the beetles so their permission is need to deal with them!

The federal agency – being a bureaucracy that represents the "heavy fist" of government – needs to understand in complete clarity that they do not own a single American Burying Beetle. They do not control the lives and times of this unique species. Yet they provide permits to kill and harass thousands of beetles without any public notice or review. And this has occurred most recently even with agency staff in the Nebraska Field Office are very aware of the concern of numerous sandhill residents concerning this little beetle and other local and essential resources. Staff could not even provide a courtesy notification to any of the many people whose emails they have readily available through current and ongoing communications. This failure is indicative.

Has the FWS actually done anything to conserve the American Burying Beetle other than making regulatory edicts? Has the agency provided any indication how their rules are benefitting the species? Nope.

Each and every American Burying Beetle in Nebraska is an asset of the citizens of Nebraska. Certainly ownership applies but that is only a legal argument. They are just one example of the great diversity of flora and fauna owned in "public trust." It is the citizens of Nebraska that should be making each and every decision associated with this species, since federal and state agencies are not representative.

Many residents of the Sand Hills – in particular – want the distinctly colored little beetle to thrive and in no manner have any malicious intent to undertake activities detrimental to their survival. Every property owner that has this beetle on their place can make their own decisions on management steps needed to make their place a success. They can personally evaluate whether or not it is beneficial or detrimental to the survival of the beetle, and there is even benign attention which applies in many instances because raising cattle is the key focus.

It seems that the American Burying Beetle is doing quite fine under current conditions in ranchland cattle country. If someone owns a ranch and wants to make it a distinct haven for the American Burying Beetle and provide ecotourism visitations to enjoy the life and times of this bug, that is their option. No government agency can try to control this right of a property owner.

This situation applies to other species of species of concern, including the Blandings Turtle. Land management efforts could occur to benefit this species and the government has no control over this. Yet the government wants to intrude by saying that they control the right to "handle or possess" a single turtle. It is easy for them to profess their rules from a taxpayer-financed office in a distant city.

A ranch owner with a property expanse where this turtle thrives has the complete right to know about the wildlife on their place. If a ranch couple want to venture out in an evening and look for turtles, they have the complete right to pick up a turtle of any sort and appreciate its presence. If a niece or nephew is visiting, they can carefully put a turtle in a suitable container and take it back to their home to share with visiting relatives for a short time, and the place it back where it was found. This is an educational and appreciation endeavor.

Property owners pay the taxes. They deal daily with the survival of so many species through their land management decisions. They have the inherent right to know and understand the natural life in their personal manner.

Yet, it is so wrong that governmental officials could swoop in and issue a criminal complaint, with possible fines attached. They would say that "handling" and "possession" is illegal.

It should be illegal for bureaucrats sitting within publicly-owned facilities to be enforcers upon those that actually own and manage great lands where plants and animals thrive and do not receive a single dime of financial support for protecting a publically appreciated resource.

If someone wants to establish a "Bluebell Ranch" where occurrence of the Blowout Penstemon is the primary focus, that is their right. They can manage for the habitat necessities of this plant, undertake revolving plot management spread across sections for the benefit of the survival of this singular plant. If they want a lack of grass and instead have a lot of sand within their property boundary that is their choice as long as it does not have an impact on neighbors. The whole complex of life at penstemon colonies is enough for a unique visit by naturalists or others that want to enjoy the so obvious biological diversity and natural life.
　
There are now great issues within the sand hills. There are however great opportunities because great people are actively working to conserve the heritage of the land and its people. There can be great times in the future as new generations realize, appreciate and understand what is essentially important for the region and its people now and in future times.

Is there an indifference to the history and future of the Great American Sandhills each day now and into tomorrow? Nope.