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.

Results of Backyard Bird Count in Cherry County, Nebraska

Four participants contributed to the Great Backyard Bird Count in eastern Cherry county during the long weekend. The primary count sites were the Carolyn and LeRoy Semin ranch just west of Kilgore, the northeast side of Valentine and within Valentine as seen during a ca. three mile bicycle ride, The Quigley bird feeders as an incidental count, and then the Gallino Ranch on the southeast side of Valentine wildlife refuge.

At the Semin place, birds were primarily counted in the morning in association with bird feeders associated with the residence.

On the north side of Valentine, some sighting reports starting on Friday when junco and turkeys were prevalent at a bird seed source. The most prominent observation was five trumpeter swans - three adults and two juveniles which was the largest count for this species at this site in recent years - at the Valentine Mill Pond on Saturday morning. There was also a smaller cackling goose well seen amidst a flock of its larger conjoiners. So many Canada goose were lingering on the ice. Several other birds sorts were prevalent at the North Lake Shore Hills as well as then in Valentine.

House sparrows were busy getting ready for the pending breeding season along Main Street building facades. At least three starlings were also getting involved. A single robin stood on a yard fence post as seen while bicycling about.

More robins had been recently seen at the Semin Ranch in previous days.

From heart city, a red-breasted nuthatch was heard north of the pond on Saturday was an addition to the tally though it was not seen during a count.

Nearby on the north side of town is the well cared-for Quigley bird feeder. Incidental during the count weekend, Anne Quigley had seen chickadees, both the red-breasted and white-breasted nuthatch, downy woodpecker and juncos.

“I really enjoy the birds,” Quigley said. They become notably more prominent once more seed was placed in the feeder during the count weekend, she said.

A summary of the 27 species noted during bird count weekend. Value given is a composite total for the particular site.

Proper Name	Semin Ranch, Kilgore	North Lake Shore Hills	Valentine Mill Pond	Valentine City Park	Quigley Place, Valentine	Valentine	Gallino Ranch, Valentine Lake District
American Crow	- -	2	1	- -	- -	- -	15
American Goldfinch	58	- -	- -	- -	- -	8	- -
American Robin	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -
American Tree Sparrow	33	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Black-capped Chickadee	5	- -	4	4	2	1	- -
Blue Jay	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	2	- -
Cackling Goose	- -	- -	4	- -	- -	- -	- -
Canada Goose	106	- -	1425	14	- -	- -	50
Common Pheasant	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	20
Common Starling	3	- -	- -	- -	- -	3	- -
Dark-eyed Junco	29	16	- -	3	3	- -	- -
Downy Woodpecker	4	- -	1	- -	1	- -	- -
Eurasian Collared Dove	- -	3	2	- -	- -	6	- -
Great Horned Owl	6	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	2
Greater Prairie-Chicken	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	20
Hairy Woodpecker	- -	- -	- -	1	- -	- -	- -
Horned Lark	2	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
House Sparrow	- -	- -	20	- -	- -	56	- -
Northern Cardinal	- -	- -	2	- -	2	- -	- -
Northern Flicker	2	- -	- -	- -	- -	1	- -
Red-breasted Nuthatch	- -	- -	1	- -	1	- -	- -
Red-tailed Hawk	1	1	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Rock Dove	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	12	- -
Sharp-tailed Grouse	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -
Trumpeter Swan	- -	- -	5	- -	- -	- -	- -
White-breasted Nuthatch	- -	- -	3	4	1	1	- -
Wild Turkey	- -	5	- -	- -	- -	- -	- -

Several pictures were taken of the birds that occurred at the Semin place.

Summary of bird counts made each of the four count days at the Semin Ranch.

Proper Name	14 Feb 2020	15 Feb 2020	16 Feb 2020	17 Feb 2020
American Goldfinch	25	16	11	6
American Tree Sparrow	2	10	1	20
Black-capped Chickadee	2	- -	2	1
Canada Goose	- -	- -	106	- -
Common Starling	2	- -	1	- -
Dark-eyed Junco	10	6	5	8
Downy Woodpecker	1	1	1	1
Great Horned Owl	2	2	1	1
Horned Lark	2	- -	- -	- -
Northern Flicker	1	- -	- -	1
Red-tailed Hawk	- -	- -	1	- -
Sharp-tailed Grouse	- -	- -	- -	- -

Multitudes of other birds were present in the county during the weekend. Nearly all of them were not counted. Warming weather meant ice-free waters at a multitude of lakes where waterfowl congregate.

The bird observations in Cherry county were a small but yet still important part of the worldwide weekend count.
A newspaper article on the results of the count was issued on pages A1 and A2 in the North Platte Telegraph on February 20th, and included two pictures taken by Carolyn Semin. She also posted a few others on her facebook page.

Palindrome Sunday Outing in Cherry County

A drive through the country on 02/02/2020 followed a route to and from Valentine by traversing Highway 97, the Brownlee Road, through Goose Creek valley and then northward along the South Wood Lake Road to Highway 20 and back to the Heart City.

At Merritt Reservoir, there were a couple of adult Bald Eagles on the southern edge, and they were near to more than 100 Common Mergansers foraging amidst the open water. Just to the south, there was a skitty bunch of Townsend's Solitaire and a few Mountain Bluebird which had been perched but then flew away a distance beyond our view. Further along, along the northern portion of the Brownlee Road, there were a surprising 21 Trumpeter Swan gathered at Packingham Lake, and this was a surprising number.

A next stop was to appreciate the hilltop view of southerly Wamaduze Valley with red angus and a few horses westerly beyond the top of the dunes. There was a view skyscape as well. This spot along the Brownlee Road is always has a nice landscape perspective.

Snowscape of Wamaduze Valley with a view of the horizon on a fine day. It was partly cloudy, the temperature reached 50o and winds were moderate, thus not bothersome!

Snow in a blowout atop a hill on the eastern side of the valley.

The best bird sighting of the day was a Northern Goshawk atop a tree on the Brownlee Flats, near the village of Brownlee. The bird was seen to fly into a cedar planting, so we drove north up another road to see if a better view might occur. The notably large bird then flew and landed on a branch perch. It was given special attention because of its size. Gordon Warrick was able to get a good picture and features of the immature goshawk were especially notable and made it possible to get a positive identification. This species is rare in the area and it has been about two decades since the last record and that was a bird present along the Niobrara River in Cherry county.

Dead Swan in a Meadow

A dead swan was seen in the meadow just north of the South Wood Lake Road, about four miles southeast of the intersection with the Skull Lake Road, and very obvious from the adjacent road. The dead swan was nearly directly beneath the powerlines present. The carcass seemed very fresh with no predation evident and the feathers mostly "normal." The only aberration was the complete removal of all feathers on a portion of one leg. It appears that it was a clean cut, as if it was done using a knife. Perhaps someone had removed a band?

Dealing With Water Along the Brownlee Road

At one spot along this hard-surface county road there was an apparent road repair. There was digging done in the road-side ditch, with the excavated dirt thrown on the adjacent slope leaving a rough surface. No attempt had been made to smooth dirt surface or to ensure suitable growing conditions for native vegetation that could inhibit erosion. A culvert had been placed under the road. These efforts were made to improve drainage of what would be identified as excess surface water.

There had been no effort to smooth the dirt either on the slope of the hillside or along the sides of the ditch. Also the repair of the road surface was very "sloppy." County workers would likely convey the excuse for the condition being the cold weather which would thwart any dirt work due to frozen ground. What ever, further work is needed to ensure the work was done in a more suitable manner.

Along the South Wood Lake Road, there were several places where road conditions were very muddy and the road surface was very rutted with deeper spots having standing water. Where some rock had been spread, the roadtop was still in a deteriorated condition. The situation would certainly make repeated travels along the route a traverse frustrating as it would be wrought with unsafe conditions and causing a great mess on any vehicle, as well as repeated wear on people and equipment. When frozen, it must be a rough ride.

Peer Review Analysis Underway on Whooping Crane

The peer review process underway appears to be another example of the FWS inhibiting public involvement. Your agency is supposedly responsible for conservation of the Whooping Crane but the staff seem to be doing its best to limit involvement of the public and to making questionable decisions that might make the survival of the crane questionable for now and for future generations.

The peer review appears to be a statistical analysis. Many people know numbers can be erroneous if the right numbers are not used. The language of the review in some sense indicates confusion on the purpose of the process as there are obvious discrepancies.

The public has no clue what particular details are being reviewed. We also apparently will not have any opportunity to analyze the report before it is finalized.

I also find in extremely troubling that there is no one involved on the peer review that has any familiarity with the Sandhills region and its unique habitat essential to the cranes. This perspective is essential to truly understand the crane and its occurrence. How does familiarity with Sandhill Crane on the gulf coast translate to knowing about our special endangered species in the sandhills.

Also, how can an agency that has ignored essential telemetry data be trusted to prepare a accurate and honest appraisal. The participants may have integrity but they represent a government agency that might be swayed to benefit a "sister" agency.

My self and others want this review to be done in a manner for the benefit of the Whooping Crane, but at this time there are no facts to make certain this is the case.

R-Project Contractor Crew Trespassing and Destroying Private Property on Ranches

November 28, 2019. R-project contractor crew trespassing and destroying private property on ranches. Grant County News 135(18): 1. With one photograph of a flowing well.

A contractor crew working on the r-project for the Nebraska Public Power District has trespassed and destroyed private property on a ranch along the southern edge of Holt county.

On November 16th, Marlene Haake of the Haake family ranch found some workers installing a new gate along the proposed right-of-way of the industrial powerline. She had been "patrolling" and on her fourth go around found where the fence that had been present was cut away and a short portion removed. New box corners for the gates had already been placed.

“We have not signed any easement to allow the placement of the powerline on our property, yet they were installing a new gate to provide vehicle access,” she said later. “They had no right to be there.”

The contractor not only violated private property rights by trespassing, but destroyed fence and appeared to have the intent to take the removed fence posts from the property, which should be considered “stealing,” she said. There was no proof shown that would give them any right of access. They had not even stopped by the ranch house to indicate their intent to encroach upon the property.

Haake made the contractors remove the newly built gate features and rebuild what was the current fence.

Elsewhere steel fence posts had been placed to mark the right-of-way. One was partially run over by a farm implement.

“I pulled six posts from our property,” she said.

The sheriffs of Garfield county and Holt county were called but no action in response to the trespassing and property destruction has yet to occur.

Haake insisted to the contractors that they could not ever intrude on the ranch again.

Along the r-project alignment in Thomas county in 2016, NPPD workers were found trespassing on the south unit of the Brush Creek Ranch, owned by Barbara and Dan Welch. The utility company people were evicted from the ranch and since then the pasture gates have been locked closed.

Both ranches have had similar results with NPPD in dealing with medical conditions associated with Ronald Haake and Dan Welch.

Physicians for both men have advised them that they need to avoid prolonged exposure to any “stray voltage” especially associated with a 345 kV industrial powerline.

At the Haake place, the powerline would be in the immediate proximity of an eight mile travel route from the east end home place to the west end of the ranch. To avoid any exposure, an alternate route would necessitate going 8 miles north, then six miles west and another eight miles south.

At Brush Creek, the transmission line would go over the cattle shipping pens and a heifer development pasture. Welch would not be able to help ship his stock since the prolonged exposure would be dangerous to his health. Welch did receive a brochure regarding stray voltage that was completely out-dated.

NPPD officials have told both that the powerline would not be any threat. The utility company did offer to provide a doctor’s consultation but both ranchers did not want to meet with a physician hired by the project builder.

Steel monopoles would be used at both ranches, and they require a 200 foot square work area to establish a seven-foot foundation, according to NPPD documents. The auger hole depth would be from 25 to 40 feet.

These constructs would be a threat to unique natural resources.

At the Haake place, groundwater has provided a steady and reliable source of water for stock tanks and ponds used by livestock since the ranch was established in 1883. For centuries, wild birds have appreciated associated wetlands. There are numerous artesian wells in the vicinity, Marlene Haake said. “We do not know how the monopole holes might influence groundwater characteristics and subterranean flows.” The extent of sub-surface water is obvious since by the time a hole is dug for a fence post, the bottom very soon has standing water.

Rangeland at Brush Creek is considered “pristine native prairie,” according to a floristic evaluation completed by a Kay Kottas, professional botanist. There were only two non-native species recorded, and they were associated with the Highway 83 corridor. Any disturbance from power pole construction and vehicular traffic would locally degrade prairie conditions.

“I don’t think any restoration activity of disturbed sites can replace a prairie setting that has evolved over centuries,” said Welch.

The Haake and Welch families continue to “stand strong” in their opposition to the unwanted and tragically intrusive r-project. Our private property rights and personal health are being threatened by the r-project, they agree.