33,924 research outputs found
Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program: 75 years of conservation and partnership success
No full textSeventy-five years of successful
wildlife management is the
remarkable legacy of the
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act, and the cause
of our 75th celebration. Along
with the Dingell-Johnson Sport
Fish Restoration Act, it is the
foundation of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s (USFWS)
Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program (WSFR)
and a cornerstone of the North
American model of fish and
wildlife management – a model
venerated for its principles,
celebrated for its performance,
and embraced for its promise
for the future. The two Acts
mark the triumph of American
conservation, founded on public
ownership of wildlife, reliance on
partnerships, and commitment
to preserve our natural heritage.U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
75 years of Conservation and Partnership Success
Celebrating the Wildlife and
Sport Fish Restoration Program
ii Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program
Foreword
In the middle of the Great
Depression in 1937, America faced
an unprecedented environmental
crisis. The Dust Bowl afflicted
much of the nation’s heartland.
Unwise development ravaged
millions of acres of wetlands and
other vital wildlife habitat, and
many species were near extinction.
In response to this crisis, the
nation’s sportsmen successfully
lobbied Congress to pass what
is arguably the most effective
conservation law in history -- the
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act.
In effect, sportsmen selflessly
convinced Congress to tax them
to fund conservation. The Act
established an excise tax on
firearms, ammunition and archery
equipment that is apportioned to
states to support the conservation
mission of their fish and wildlife
agencies. Along with the Dingell-
Johnson Sport Fish Restoration
Act passed in 1950 to establish a
similar tax on fishing and boating
equipment, the law ensures a
permanent, dedicated source of
conservation funding. It is widely
recognized as having provided the
foundation for professional wildlife
management at both the state and
federal level.
As we celebrate the 75th
anniversary of this landmark
law, President Obama and his
administration are building on
this great foundation through
the America’s Great Outdoors
initiative. In partnership with
communities across the country,
we are seeking to establish a
conservation ethic for the 21st
century and to reconnect people,
especially young people, to the
natural world.
For three generations, Pittman-
Robertson has served as a model
of conservation partnership.
Let us celebrate its success.
Let us also seek to build new
partnerships that will ensure
the health of our land, our
water and our wildlife and
provide opportunities for future
generations to enjoy them.
Foreword iii
Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar
Credit: DOI/Tami A. Heilman
iv Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program
equipment manufacturers who pay
an excise tax on the equipment
they produce as well as the millions
of sportsmen and -women who
effectively pay that tax through the
purchase of equipment to hunt,
fish, shoot and boat, or otherwise
enjoy the great American outdoors
and our wildlife heritage.
The funds collected provide
the very foundation of wildlife
management in this country. They
are dispersed to the various state
wildlife agencies, through the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and complement the funding
from the sale of hunting and
fishing licenses. They also provide
critical funding for vital habitat
enhancement projects proposed
by the states. This approach,
born of the Dust Bowl days and
echoing that first gathering of
conservation visionaries, has
resulted in what has become
known worldwide as the North
American Conservation Model --
which recognizes we all do our best
work for wildlife when we work
together. For their dream to indeed
become a reality, there would be a
continuing need to establish strong
conservation partnerships at that
time and in the future to face the
serious challenges in wildlife and
environmental conservation.
In 1987, as part of its
commemoration of the 50th
anniversary of the Federal Aid
in Wildlife Restoration Act,
commonly referred to as the
Pittman-Robertson Act in honor
of its Congressional sponsors,
the Service produced a book
entitled Restoring America’s
Wildlife, a retrospective volume
In 1936, President Franklin
Roosevelt convened the first
ever North American Wildlife
Conference bringing together
representatives of the various state
wildlife agencies, conservation
organizations, and other wildlife
interests. He opened the meeting
charging those in attendance to
work together, and said he hoped
that “from it will come constructive
proposals for concrete actions…
and that through those proposals
state and federal agencies and
conservation groups can work
together for the common good.”
Thus was forged a partnership
among wildlife conservation
interests that in the following year
was to be formalized by enactment
of the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act.
This year we pay tribute to
75 years of successful fish and
wildlife management and habitat
enhancement based on the
revenues resulting from the Act and
accompanying legislation enacted
since 1937. We also salute the
sporting arms, archery, and fishing
documenting the outstanding
wildlife conservation stories
resulting from that landmark
legislation. The intent of this
report is to present the same for
the past 25 years, and include
the many successes realized in
fishery conservation resulting
from passage of the Dingell-
Johnson Sport Fish Restoration
Act in 1950. Later, the Wallop-
Breaux Amendments effectively
combined these programs and
resulted in the conservation
model we follow today.
That book concluded that the
“Pittman-Robertson program is
the single most productive wildlife
undertaking on record…and that
it has meant more for wildlife in
more ways than any other effort.”
I believe this current volume
heartily reaffirms that conclusion,
and I hope you agree.
Finally, I would like to offer
a big thanks to the numerous
wildlife professionals, writers,
photographers, artists and
others who have graciously
contributed their time and effort
in order to make this outstanding
publication possible. I certainly
hope you find it a worthy salute
to three-quarters of a century of
outstanding American wildlife
conservation.
Fish and Wildlife Service Director,
Dan Ashe
(Foreword, contined)
Credit: USFWS/Lavonda Walton
Message from the Director
Seventy-five years of successful
wildlife management is the
remarkable legacy of the
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act, and the cause
of our 75th celebration. Along
with the Dingell-Johnson Sport
Fish Restoration Act, it is the
foundation of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s (USFWS)
Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program (WSFR)
and a cornerstone of the North
American model of fish and
wildlife management – a model
venerated for its principles,
celebrated for its performance,
and embraced for its promise
for the future. The two Acts
mark the triumph of American
conservation, founded on public
ownership of wildlife, reliance on
partnerships, and commitment
to preserve our natural heritage.
America’s history of wildlife
management began in the chaos
of the “commons”—the vast wild
lands jointly held and used by
all U.S. citizens as a collective
asset. A seemingly unlimited
resource was relentlessly
hunted and fished by a growing
population with an insatiable
appetite for the food, clothing,
trophies, and commercial
products wildlife provided. In
the jargon of economics, the
marginal benefit of hunting one
more animal accrued exclusively
to the individual hunter, while
the cumulative costs of unlimited
hunting fell crushingly on
the shoulders of society. The
discrepancy in benefit and cost
led to uncontrolled harvest and
the rapid decline of wildlife
nationwide.
State wildlife agencies stepped
into the picture in the early
20th Century with the goal of
affirming public ownership
of wildlife – the Public Trust
Doctrine – and regulating its
harvest with licenses. Yet, apart
from the revenue from license
sales, the wildlife agencies
operated on a financial shoe
string. Pittman-Robertson and,
later, Dingell Johnson came to
their fiscal rescue. The excise
taxes raised by those Acts –
excise taxes paid for by hunters
and anglers – along with license
fees established the principle
of user pays/public benefits,
the fiscal foundation of game
management in America.
The funding enabled by these
Acts, however, is only part of
the success story. The glue
that secures the framework of
modern wildlife management is
partnership. Our celebration of
WSFR’s 75th Anniversary is
really a celebration of the power
of partnership, of the hunters
and anglers who pay the cost
of conservation with fees and
taxes, the outdoor sporting
industries that make the system
of excise taxes possible, the
State fish and wildlife agencies
that provide the scientific
know-how to manage game,
the many citizen groups and
nongovernmental organizations
that expand the States’ capacity
to manage wildlife, and the
USFWS that works hand-in-
hand with the States to
administer the WSFR Program.
We should take pride in the
legacy of the WSFR Program
over the past 75 years. It
has helped empower our
State agencies and citizen
conservationists to achieve
as a nation what no other
nation in the world has
achieved: unparalleled wildlife
Foreword v
management success. Sadly,
the full story of that success is
still largely untold; but it will be
told. The new Wildlife TRACS
performance reporting system
for the WSFR Program will
make that story known and
available to everyone who cares
about wildlife conservation.
Finally, to quote the great
English bard, what’s past is
prologue. Just as the North
American model calmed the
tempest of the wildlife commons,
that same model points the
way to conserving the diversity
and richness of all wildlife in
America. It won’t be easy, but
through the synergy of federal,
state, and private partnerships,
the work that began 75 years
ago in 1937 with the passage of
Pittman Robertson will carry
us to the next 75 years, into a
future where our success will
extend to all species.
Credit: DOI/Tami A. Heilman
Hannibal Bolton
Message from the Assistant Director
for Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program
vvii C Setleabtruasti nRge tvhiee wW ialdnlidfe C anodn sSeprovrta Ftiiosnh RReesctoormatmione nPdroagtrioamns for the Gull-billed Tern
Table of Contents vii
Table of Contents
Foreword ...............................................................................................................................................................iii
Message from the Director ...................................................................................................................................iv
Message from the Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration .....................................................v
The Beginning 75 Years Ago..................................................................................................................................1
A History of Major Events in State and Federal Wildlife Conservation .................................................................. 5
National Outlook
Congressional Viewpoints ........................................................................................................................... 8
The Lifeblood of State Fish & Wildlife Agencies .................................................................................... 9
Industry Pride in its Conservation Efforts ............................................................................................ 13
Boating-Related Revenues Pack a Powerful Funding Punch for Aquatic
Conservation and Boating Infrastructure Programs ........................................................................... 17
Valuing the Benefits of Wildlife............................................................................................................................ 21
Quick Facts from the 2011 National Survey................................................................................................ 22
National Survey Trends Graph .............................................................................................................. 27
State Outlook
Reliable Funding Source Benefits America’s Sport Fisheries ............................................................. 29
Fishing and Hunting License Trends ...................................................................................................... 31
Preserving Virginia’s Wild Heritage ....................................................................................................... 33
Education Realm
Hunter Education ..................................................................................................................................... 37
Aquatic Resource Education .................................................................................................................... 41
Becoming an Outdoors-Woman................................................................................................................. 43
“Trophies” - WSFR’s 75th Anniversary Painting .................................................................................................. 44
Conservation Success Stories
Pacific Region: The Elements of Success: How WSFR Funds Helped Create
Summer Lake Wildlife Management Area ..............................................................................................45
Conservation on Sarigan Island, Northern Mariana Islands................................................................46
Southwest Region: Desert Bighorn Sheep Restoration in New Mexico .............................................47
Midwest Region: Renovation of Wisconsin’s Wild Rose State Fish Hatchery ...................................49
Southeast Region: Elk Restoration and Management in Eastern Kentucky .....................................50
Alabama Children Get Their Feet Wet in the Creek Kids Program.....................................................51
Northeast Region: Virginia’s Quail Recovery .........................................................................................52
Restoration of Arctic Char and Eastern Brook Trout at Big Reed Pond, Maine ...............................52
Mountain Prairie Region: Smith Family “Legacy” Becomes New Addition to
Utah’s Tabby Mountain Wildlife Management Area ............................................................................54
viii C eSlteabtruatsi nRg ethveie Wwi ladnlifde Canodn Sspeorrvta Ftiisohn R Resetcoormatimone Pnrdoagtriaomns for the Gull-billed Tern
Whirling Disease Research in Colorado-Resitant Rainbow Trout Studies .........................................56
Alaska Region: Kenai Moose Research Center - A World Leader in Moose Science ........................57
Pacific Southwest: Lake Mohave Habitat Enhancement ......................................................................59
Wildlife Reflections
Hunting and Fishing: A Modern Answer to Environmental Concerns ...............................................61
A Noiseless Effort that Has Changed the World ....................................................................................63
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................65
Appendix - Program Data ................................................................................................................................66-76
Name of Section 1
The Beginning 75 Years Ago
Mark Madison, Historian
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Creating a New
Conservation Constituency:
The Pittman-Robertson Act
of 1937 and the Dingell-
Johnson Act of 1950
The America of colonial times
teemed with wildlife and fish.
However, the country’s rapid
westward expansion in the 19th
century took an enormous toll on
wildlife habitat which disappeared
at an alarming rate. Moreover, by
the 20th century, decades of poor
enforcement of existing hunting laws,
the unregulated growth of market
hunting, and hunters who took
more than their share (commonly
referred to as “game hogs”) added
to the decline of once-abundant
wildlife populations with many game
species teetering on the brink of
extinction. Although today it may
be hard to believe, in 1937 there
were relatively few white-tailed
deer remaining in the country. In
Indiana, for example, the last known
specimen had been killed in 1893, and
spotting one anywhere on the East
Coast would have been a rare event.
Out West, pronghorn antelope,
elk, and bighorn sheep populations
were fast declining. Beavers were
practically nonexistent south of
the Canadian border, and wild
turkeys faced imminent extinction
across the country. Many dedicated
conservationists and sportsmen
alike watched this trend with
growing alarm and worked to get the
country’s first wildlife laws enacted
to protect America’s wildlife and the
habitat upon which it depended.
In the 1930s, a combined economic
depression and ecological disaster
led the federal government to
seek innovative ways to help
impoverished Americans and
conserve our nation’s lands and
wildlife. The Great Depression
and the Great Plains Dust Bowl
destroyed families and decimated
wildlife habitat, leading President
Franklin Roosevelt, wildlife
conservation organizations,
sportsmen, and several concerned
Congressmen to work together
to pass a series of laws that,
today, are still the foundation of
this country’s natural resource
conservation programs.
The creation of the Civilian
Conservation Corps (1933-
1942) introduced 2.5 million
young men to outdoor work
on national forests, parks, and
wildlife refuges. In 1934 the
Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp
Act (popularly known as the Duck
Stamp Act) raised money for
wetland acquisition through the
sale of special revenue stamps
required for legal hunting of
waterfowl. President Roosevelt,
in 1936, convened the First North
American Wildlife Conference,
which brought together a variety
of agencies and organizations
to discuss the future of wildlife
conservation in America.
The Beginning 75 Years Ago 1
Market hunters also known as
“game hogs”. Credit: USFWS
Senator Key Pittman of Nevada
Credit: USFWS
Representative A. Willis Robertson of
Virginia. Credit: USFWS
Drought and wind took a toll on
habitat. (Dallas, South Dakota
1936) Credit: U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern
sponsor the bill in the Senate and
the Senator quickly concurred
with the bill’s original language.
Shoemaker then asked Virginia
Congressman A. Willis Robertson
to co-sponsor the bill in the House.
Robertson, a former chairman
of the Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries from
1926-1932, closely examined its
language. As chairman, Robertson
had seen game funds repeatedly
raided for other state projects.
Based on his own experience, he
said he would support the bill
if Shoemaker would insert the
following sentence: “…and which
shall include a prohibition
against the diversion of
license fees paid by hunters
for any other purpose than the
administration of said State
fish and game department…”
Shoemaker agreed, stating that the
29 words were the most important
additions made by anyone. With this
amendment, Congress passed the
bill, shepherded by a constituency
of Congressional sportsmen and
-women.
Pittman-Robertson represented
a milestone in North American
conservation history. All hunters
(not just waterfowl hunters) were
actively investing in the future of
wildlife and its habitat. The North
American Model of Conservation
was solidified; not only did the
2 Celebrating the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program
The 1937 Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act (popularly known
as the Pittman-Robertson Act after
its Congressional sponsors) was
the next step in a quickly-evolving
American conservation movement.
It provided a much-needed, stable
source of funding for wildlife
conservation programs across the
country and today is considered
the single most productive wildlife
undertaking on record.
Interestingly enough, the
legislation’s most vocal supporters
were sportsmen and hunters – the
very group that would be most
affected by the tax. Many hunters
made it clear they willingly would
accept a permanent tax if it meant
the government would use the
funds to work with the states
to ensure the sustainability of
popular game animals.
Although these partners
recognized the urgency of securing
a permanent dedicated funding
source, it still took a great deal
of work to actually pass the Act.
The idea behind Federal Aid
goes back at least to 1935 when
a proposal was first made to use
an existing excise tax on sporting
arms and ammunition for game
restoration and habitat acquisition
to be managed by the Biological
Survey. Normally, this proposal
would have garnered support
from sportsmen; however in the
midst of an economic depression
it was a tough sell to transfer any
excise tax revenue out of general
government funds needed for the
country’s recovery.
During the 1930s, a group of
gifted conservationists and
new organizations kept the
issue alive for the next several
years. The recently-hired head
of the Biological Survey, Jay
N. “Ding” Darling was a noted
prize-winning political cartoonist,
conservationist, sportsman, and
influential friend of President
Franklin Roosevelt. A visionary,
Darling lobbied ceaselessly for
the funds to support wildlife
restoration. Upon retiring from
the Bilogical Survey in 1935 he
went on to found the National
Wildlife Federation (NWF)
in 1936 which made wildlife
restoration its mission. Darling,
himself, relentlessly pressed all
The sense of a beginning : Bakhtinian dialogic criticism on 'the gospel' in Mark.
No full textContemporary literary approaches have caused paradigm shifts in Biblical Studies in the last two decades as it appears in a great deal of Markan studies using narrative, reader-response, deconstructive, feminist, and new historicist approaches. However, literary studies on the Gospel of Mark have not taken into account theoretical questions underlying those approaches. As a result biblical critics are driven by new trends without ever having a chance to examine the critical baggage of the approaches. Consequently, there is a gap of communication between the old and the new one. Therefore this thesis is an attempt to meet the need of enhancing the quality of critical endeavour in biblical studies. In the light of most recent competing critical theories of literature, the first contribution of this thesis is the methodological finding that Bakhtinian dialogic criticism contains the most profound philosophical and practical foundations for solving some crucial theoretical problems in contemporary literary theories. It is a critique to a Saussurian linguistic system of language which becomes the very foundation of modern and postmodern literary criticism. Bakhtinian literary theory shifts the foundation of literary criticism on linguistic signs into the creative activity of the socio-cultural production of human communication. The shift into socio-cultural reality of language communication makes the notion of 'genre' very important to unlock the problem of text and context in literary studies. Since the Gospel of Mark has fascinated most literary critics in Biblical Studies, the problem of 'genre' of this gospel is chosen as the focus of this study. Secondly, as no agreement is reached as to what 'genre' the Gospel of Mark belongs, this thesis makes its contribution to the discussion by locating the problem of 'genre' of Mark in the context of genre theories and argues that the Bakhtinian suggestion to find genre in the socio-cultural sphere by analysing artistic intercourse between narrative agents in Mark has freed the competing analysis from the unresolved problem between the kerygmatic (content oriented) approach and the analogical (form oriented) approach. To achieve finding 'genre' in the socio-cultural sphere, this thesis focuses on Bakhtinian analysis of the process of artistic intercourse between narrative agents. The narrative communicative interrelationships between narrative agents is constructed in this thesis as a 'stereophonic' Bakhtinian model of dialogic communication. This model is an original contribution of this thesis for revising the traditional two dimensional model of narrative communication. Based on this dialogical model of communication, a special role is given to the Bakhtinian 'author-creator' in the realization process of genre through the interaction of polyphonic voices. Through the interaction of voices of the author-artist and the hero we are led to discover a relatively stable type of portraying and controlling reality in Mark, known as the genre of Roman 'satire'. The closest literary affinity is Satyrica by Petronius. This narrative strategy of 'satire' in Mark has its root in the prophetic discourse of the Old Testament which is saturating the speech of the narrator, John the Immerser, the centurion, the people, and even Jesus. Finally, the whole search for Markan 'genre' culminates in the analysis of the realization of genre through the analysis of Bakhtinian chronotope. The reality of the genre of Mark is its social reality that is in its role as dpxrj/ 'beginning'. As the Gospel of Mark proclaims itself as 'a beginning', it defines its claim of socio-cultural 'authority' in early Christianity. It is this 'sense of beginning' which enables the narrating and the narrated world of Mark to interact dialogically
Fish, wildlife and people: a Mark Trail coloring book
No full textThis is a children's coloring storybook. It follows Mark Trail as he explains to young Rusty the importance of taking care of America's park lands. It also includes several games and activities. Note: The Mark Trail/Ed Dodd in Gainesville, GA is referenced.U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
http://www.fws.gov
June 1998
As the Nation’s principle conservation
agency, the Department of the Interior has
responsibility for most of our nationally
owned public lands and natural resources.
This includes fostering the wisest use of
our land and water resources, protecting
our fish and wildlife, preserving the
environmental and cultural values of our
national parks and historical places, and
providing for the enjoyment of life through
outdoor recreation. The Department
assesses our energy and mineral resources
and works to assure that their development
is in the best interests of all our people. The
Department also has a major responsibility
for American Indian reservation
communities and for people who live in
island territories under U.S. administration
Distinct migratory and non-migratory ecotypes of an endemic New Zealand eleotrid (Gobiomorphus cotidianus) – implications for incipient speciation in island freshwater fish species
No full textBackground: Many postglacial lakes contain fish species with distinct ecomorphs. Similar evolutionary scenarios might be acting on evolutionarily young fish communities in lakes of remote islands. One process that drives diversification in island freshwater fish species is the colonization of depauperate freshwater environments by diadromous (migratory) taxa, which secondarily lose their migratory behaviour. The loss of migration limits dispersal and gene flow between distant populations, and, therefore, is expected to facilitate local morphological and genetic differentiation. To date, most studies have focused on interspecific relationships among migratory species and their non-migratory sister taxa. We hypothesize that the loss of migration facilitates intraspecific morphological, behavioural, and genetic differentiation between migratory and non-migratory populations of facultatively diadromous taxa, and, hence, incipient speciation of island freshwater fish species.
Results: Microchemical analyses of otolith isotopes (Sr-88, Ba-137 and Ca-43) differentiated migratory and non-migratory stocks of the New Zealand endemic Gobiomorphus cotidianus McDowall (Eleotridae). Samples were taken from two rivers, one lake and two geographically-separated outgroup locations. Meristic analyses of oculoscapular lateral line canals documented a gradual reduction of these structures in the non-migratory populations. Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) fingerprints revealed considerable genetic isolation between migratory and non-migratory populations. Temporal differences in reproductive timing (migratory = winter spawners, non-migratory = summer spawners; as inferred from gonadosomatic indices) provide a prezygotic reproductive isolation mechanism between the two ecotypes.
Conclusion: This study provides a holistic look at the role of diadromy in incipient speciation of island freshwater fish species. All four analytical approaches (otolith microchemistry, morphology, spawning timing, population genetics) yield congruent results, and provide clear and independent evidence for the existence of distinct migratory and non-migratory ecotypes within a river in a geographically confined range. The morphological changes within the non-migratory populations parallel interspecific patterns observed in all non-migratory New Zealand endemic Gobiomorphus species and other derived gobiid taxa, a pattern suggesting parallel evolution. This study indicates, for the first time, that distinct ecotypes of island freshwater fish species may be formed as a consequence of loss of migration and subsequent diversification. Therefore, if reproductive isolation persists, these processes may provide a mechanism to facilitate speciation
Mark Madison speaks with Lisa Mighetto
No full textLisa Mighetto is the Executive Director of the Amerian Society for Environmental History.MARK MADISON: Hi. Today is May 11, 2011, and this is Mark Madison at the National Conservation Training Center in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, and on today's Podcast we're very fortunate to have Lisa Mighetto, who is an environmental historian and currently the Executive Director of the American Society for Environmental History.
Welcome, Lisa. Thanks for coming out here.
LISA MIGHETTO: Well, thank you for having me.
MARK MADISON: Lisa, why don't you tell us a little bit about what the American Society for Environmental History does.
LISA MIGHETTO: We are a nonprofit organization of educators and scholars. We study the history of human interaction with the natural world over time.
Basically what we do is provide context for current environmental issues. For example, we have people who study natural disasters, the historical background for hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, floods. We have people who study public lands, fish and wildlife. We have people who study environmental justice issues, urban issues. Very broad interests.
MARK MADISON: If people wanted to learn more about ASEH, is there a web site they could go to?
LISA MIGHETTO: Yes, it's www.aseh.net.
MARK MADISON: Great. You're also an environmental historian. Could you give us a case study for environmental history that you might have worked on?
LISA MIGHETTO: Well, this could provide an example of what environmental historians do and how-- basically if you're interested in the environment, you're interested in environmental history, because it provides the background, as I said, for current issues.
I worked before I became director of ASEH as what's called a public historian, that's history outside the university, and I worked on many contracts for government agencies, such as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Forest Service. And I did a lot of work on salmon issues since I live in the Seattle area, the Pacific Northwest. That work basically assisted biologists who were looking at endangered species.
A lot of this work intensified in the early 1990s and late 1990s, coinciding with endangered species listings, and there was a need to research the many stocks of salmon in the Northwest in terms of their population distribution and their habitat, the changing habitat conditions. And historians often know where little-known records are that can help biologists document.
MARK MADISON: Were there some interesting things you learned about salmon and their history?
LISA MIGHETTO: Yes. This, again, gives an example of sort of the range that environmental history provides. When you look at salmon, you could look at commercially important species. You could look at planting records, that is, fish culture and how biologists try to propagate fish. You could look at policy issues and regulations. You could look at, for instance, how the so-called trash fish that were deemed inconvenient were removed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. You could look at social history, even, user groups, from tribal fishers and Native peoples to sport fishers to government biologists to just people who are recreating on weekends and all these groups interact. You could look at the history of the importance of an animal like salmon, or fish, in terms of cultural history, how important it's been to Native peoples, to sport fishers in literature over time. So the history of ideas becomes important, too. But that's how wide ranging, just by looking at one example, like salmon, and if you expand that out into many, many species--
MARK MADISON: Are there other case studies you've worked on?
LISA MIGHETTO: Oh, well, yes, there are many, many. I used to research wolves-- well, because fish and wildlife was my specialty, that's what I--
MARK MADISON: That's good.
LISA MIGHETTO: Right. I thought that might be of interest here.
One of the things that interested me was I also did work on litigation support for large court cases, and the court often had a need in large litigation cases to establish the state of biological knowledge at a certain time. Environmental historians analyze that and study that. And I remember one biologist who I worked with who was very, very good in his field, in fact a leader in his field in the Seattle area, and we were talking about how this one area we were studying in terms of changing habitat conditions, they had removed all of the crud in the streams because they thought, well, we'll clear it out and make it nice and tidy for fish. Well, of course, now, when you look at that and you say, well, what about all that large woody debris that was there that we needed?
We also looked at the bounties on trash fish and how some of those trash fish had been removed and the repercussions, the consequences. And I said to him, jokingly, "Well, these mistakes had been made in the past." And he said, "Yeah, they didn't know what they were doing then." And I said, jokingly, "Oh, but we know what we're doing now, right?" And I was kidding, but he was serious, and he said, "Yes, now we're correcting the mistakes of the past." And I thought, well, this is why you need the historical perspective, because it shows you how the state of knowledge evolves over time. Scientific knowledge is not a static thing.
MARK MADISON: Yes, perspective is critical.
LISA MIGHETTO: Right.
MARK MADISON: Now, we have a journal. There is an environmental history journal. That's a great place to get an introduction to the field. Were there any environmental history books that influenced you?
LISA MIGHETTO: Well, I studied with Roderick Nash in the '70s. So that was quite a while ago. "Wilderness in the American Mind" was one of the books that founded the field. But ASEH was founded in 1977, so it coincided with the emergence of the environmental movement.
But we have lists of books on our web site, which again is aseh.net, if anybody is interested in looking at the most influential books in environmental history. I noticed just walking around NCTC all of the photographs of important people like George Bird Grinell, John Muir, Theodore Roosevelt, Ira Gabrielson, Ding Darling. The list goes on and on. Our members have written books, biographies, very good books, about these individuals and their impact. And those books are listed in these bibliographies.
MARK MADISON: Well, Lisa, thank you very much. Lisa Mighetto is the Director for the American Society of Environmental History. If you wanted to learn more about them, you could go to their web site, www.aseh.net.
You look like you wanted to add something, Lisa. Jump right in.
LISA MIGHETTO: Not only do we have a journal, but we have an annual conference that brings together not only academics but journalists and activists and government agency people.
MARK MADISON: Where's the 2012 conference going to be?
LISA MIGHETTO: In Madison, Wisconsin.
MARK MADISON: I like the sound of that. It's going to be right near Aldo Leopold's shack.
LISA MIGHETTO: We're going to visit Aldo Leopold's shack and we're going to visit John Muir's farmstead. So it will be an interesting conference.
MARK MADISON: Actually, before we let Lisa go, she knows quite a bit about John Muir. Tell us a little about your experience with John Muir and why he's important to us today.
LISA MIGHETTO: Well, at the time that I was writing about John Muir, I mean, that was many years ago, but I should mention that there's been a resurgence of interest in John Muir. So if you're at all interested in John Muir, there's a new movie coming out, "John Muir and the New World," I think it's called. There's a recent biography by Donald Worster about John Muir. So, very important naturalists. And I grew up on the West Coast, so, of course, he was a--
MARK MADISON: Kind of a founding philosopher of the Park Service ideology and the Sierra Club.
LISA MIGHETTO: And an important Sierra Club figure.
MARK MADISON: Great. Thank you-- go ahead, Lisa. I interrupted you.
LISA MIGHETTO: Thank you for having me.
MARK MADISON: Well, thank you, Lisa. And once again, it's Lisa Mighetto, Executive Director of the American Society for Environmental History, and thank you for taking the time to listen
A fish rots from the head down, Mark Rutte et al
No full textA fish rots from the head down, and I’m not referring to the Scottish catch that cannot get into the EU these days, although I’m sure it applies as well. Rather, it’s what the acting Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, has in common with fellow right-wing enablers such as Boris Johnson and his Brexiteers, most of the US Republican leadership and a slew of other conservative political opportunists
Consumer Interest and Marketing Potential of Information on Fish Labels
No full textFood labels are an important source of information to consumers. However, little scientific evidence is available on the type of information consumers seek on product labels and how consumers use food labels. The objective of this study is to assess consumers’ use of mandatory information cues and interest in potential information cues placed on fish labels, packages or shelves in five European countries. A cross-sectional consumer survey was carried out in November-December 2004 in five European countries: Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain and a sample representative for age and region within each country has been obtained. Total sample size is 4,786. The results show a high use of on-label information cues; hence, labels were found as good, and potentially market effective sources of information. Consumers were most familiar with expiry date, price, species name and weight and they felt able to derive clear quality expectations from the information these cues convey. Consumers displayed the strongest interest in an additional information cues, such as safety guarantee and a quality mark for seafood. Cross-country differences in both use and interest in fish information cues were observed.consumer, fish, label, Consumer/Household Economics, Marketing,
River Habitats for Coarse Fish: How Fish Use Rivers and How We Can Help Them
No full textThis book:•Everard, M. (2015). River Habitats for Coarse Fish: How Fish Use Rivers and How We Can Help Them. Old Pond Publishing.is in three parts:1.How Britain’s diverse coarse fish species use river habitats throughout their life cycles – from egg to larva, juvenile and adult and during often dramatically varying conditions across the seasons – covering the three principal needs during these very different life stages of:a.Reproduction;b.Feeding; andc.Refuge.2.The radical changes to our river systems that have occurred relative to their fully natural conditions within which fish evolved, and which therefore represent bottlenecks to fish life cycles.3.Practical measures that people can undertake as part of fishery management – avoiding removing functional habitat, installing buffer zones and deflectors, bypassing weirs, etc. – that can alleviate these bottlenecks for the benefit of fisheries, associated wildlife and the many wider ecosystem service benefits that rivers provide.The book is endorsed with logos from:•The Angling Trust•The Rivers Trust•Wiltshire Wildlife Trust•The Institute of Fisheries Management•The Freshwater Biological Association•The River Restoration Centre•The Barbel Society•The Avon Roach Project•The Wild Trout Trust•The Salmon and Trout Associatio
Robert "Bob" Stratton
No full textRobert "Bob" Stratton oral history interview as conducted by Mark Madison.
Mr. Stratton discusses how he got started with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and refuges he worked at. He shares several stories, one concerning monarch butterflies and the Program, Planning, Budget and Evaluation or PPBE.
Organization: FWS
Name: Bob Stratton
Years: 1962-1995
Program: Refuges
Keywords: Biography, Employees (USFWS), History, Wildlife refuges, Wildlife management, Farms and farming, Management, Waterfowl, National Elk Refuge, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge, Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge, Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge, Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge, Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge, Washita National Wildlife Refuge, Optima National Wildlife Refuge, Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge, Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Mark Twain National Wildlife1
Oral History Cover SheetOral History Cover SheetOral History Cover Sheet Oral History Cover Sheet Oral History Cover SheetOral History Cover Sheet Oral History Cover SheetOral History Cover SheetOral History Cover Sheet Oral History Cover SheetOral History Cover Sheet Oral History Cover Sheet
Name: Bob Stratton
Date of Interview: April 13, 2015
Location of Interview: National Conservation Training Center, Shepherdstown, WV
Interviewer: Mark Madison
Approximate years worked for Fish and Wildlife Service: 33 years
Offices and Field Stations Worked, Positions Held: National Elk Refuge, Wyoming; Quivira Refuge, Kansas; Fish Springs, Utah; Alamosa and Monte Vista Refuges, Colorado; Salt Plains Refuge, Oklahoma; Union Slough, Iowa; at the Washita and Optima Refuges, Oklahoma; Sequoyah Refuge, Oklahoma; Laguna Atascosa, Texas; Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska; Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge, Illinois.
Colleagues: Fred Bolwahnn, Harold Miller, Pete Bryant, Marc Nelson, Lyle Stemmerman
Brief Summary of Interview: Mr. Stratton begins by discussing where he went to college, how he got started with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the different refuges where he worked. He shares several stories, one concerning monarch butterflies and the Program, Planning, Budget and Evaluation or PPBE. He also talks about how things have changed concerning grade increases, difference between when he was a refuge manager and refuge managers today, and even training. He really enjoyed working for the Service and says he “wouldn’t have changed it.”
2
Mark: Today is April 13 and I’m Mark Madison doing an oral history with Robert “Bob” Stratton. And first thing, Bob, is can you spell your name?
Bob: You bet, Stratton is STRATTON.
Mark: Okay. And usually, Bob, the first question we have is about your education.
Bob: I graduated from Colorado State University, bachelor’s degree in wildlife management, 1965. Actually midterm; I spent a few too many hours hunting and fishing and had to catch some courses that I should have taken earlier, but it was an enjoyable experience. At that time in the field of wildlife conservation there were two schools of thought really: Colorado State and Utah State; not to diminish the other good schools around the country, but those were the two that really kind of turned out the graduates. So I looked in the catalogs and said, that’s the place, drove up there and saw the mountains and I said, oh, this is the place.
Mark: Where are you from originally, Bob?
Bob: Northern Illinois. And in my career it was interesting to see the number of graduates from the mid-west; Illinois, Iowa, kind of interesting that those areas supplied a lot of the early graduates, but when you think, Leopold was from Iowa, Burlington. I’ve had the privilege of visiting with Ira Grabrielson at a refuge that he in fact established. He came back for a visit, and I’m sure he looked at me as this young pup as not going to be able to do much, but it was fun talking to him.
Mark: What refuge was that?
Bob: Union Slough, northern Iowa.
Mark: Alright. Well, let’s backtrack a bit though.
Bob: Okay, sure.
Mark: You graduate, what was your job post-graduation?
Bob: Actually need to back up even further. I was privileged to begin under a program that’s no longer in place and probably will never be put into effect again, the old Student Trainee Program. And in 1960, I can remember seeing a posting on the bulletin board at the Forestry and Wildlife building at Colorado State. And it said, “Mr. George Barkley from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be here to provide background on the Fish and Wildlife Service for promising careers.” I signed up on a big list and I thought at that time, you either need to be the first interview, or you’ll need to be the last. So I signed up last, 3:00 in the afternoon on a Friday. Had a meeting that night of two, three hundred students and to my surprise Dr. Gilbert stood up and said, “Is Bob Stratton in the audience?” He said, “Mr. Barkley would like to meet with you tonight. You’re the only one listed for Friday and he wants to get an early start going home.” So I walked up, met Mr. Barkley, he said, “Send Larry Means a letter up at the National Elk Refuge and tell him I told him to hire you.” “Okay.” So I sent a letter to 3
Refuge Manager Means, a couple months later he replied and he said, “We’re going to start the irrigation season in May on National Elk Refuge, if you accept the job, send me a note.” And I thought, Wow!, sent a note and that was the start of my career. I woke up every morning looking out at the Tetons and I thought it just doesn’t get any better than this. From there we worked a series of refuges; went from there to Quivira Refuge in the state of Kansas, and then Fish Springs in Utah, the desert of Utah. Came back from there and went to Monte Vista and the Alamosa Refuge, in fact, I was the, I guess I had the distinction of posting the very first refuge boundary sign on the Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge back in ’66. And had some real disgruntled land owners watching me do that at the time; it was one of those condemnation things and it didn’t make people real happy. From there Monte Vista, Salt Plains Refuge in Oklahoma, then up to Union Slough in Iowa, back to Oklahoma at the Washita and Optima Refuges, across the state to the Boston Mountains in Sequoyah Refuge. From there we went to, a real cultural shock, Laguna Atascosa on the coast of Texas; spent four years there basking in the sun in the 70 degree winters and decided wanted to try Alaska, so we went to Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge on the island, spent oh a year and a half or so there, decided that $25 pizzas and flying everywhere was a little much. Moved to Mark Twain on the Mississippi and had the three states, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri under our management operation; retired from there in December, no, January of 1995 with 33 years of service. I had an interview with a newspaper writer at Quincy, our headquarters, and I believe today as I did then, that I was so fortunate in having a job, if you want to call it that, that I never ever really had problems waking up in the morning. I was just one of those things that you kind of, you know, a high school kid living a dream and it never ended.
Mark: That’s great. Now what was the first refuge you were manager of?
Bob: Union Slough; Union Slough in Iowa, 1968, June of ’68 we moved up there. I was an assistant manager trainee under Pete Bryant, a great old time manager at Monte Vista, and then went to Salt Plains as the primary assistant with Fred Bolwhann, another fine gentleman. And that’s where we became acquainted with and good friends with Harold Miller, the longtime clerk of the typewriter fame that we just represented to you. [Mark laughing] And then from there to Union Slough and I was manager for rest of my career.
Mark: How did managing a refuge change over three decades, or working in a refuge since you…?
Bob: You know, and it certainly has, Mark.
Mark: You had a long career.
Bob: Probably, and I can still remember the day that we received the call that we were going to have these training sessions. And if I mention the acronym PPBE, do you, okay.
Mark: No.
Bob: PPBE stands for, and some of the old time guys if they ever hear this recording; Program, Planning, Budget, and Evaluation. And that was put in 4
place by, we referred to them as the Schmidt brothers in Washington, D.C., and they were kind of nameless, faceless people that we never saw. They sent these memos out, said, “We’re going to bring the National Wildlife Refuge System into the 21st century. We’re going to start managing by this process, PPBE.” Part of that, an important part of it, was the designation of RBU, so we called them “Bennys”, Refuge Benefit Units. Each operation, each wildlife species, each anything on a refuge was assigned a Benefit Unit; one duck for one day was one RBU.
Mark: I have heard about these.
Bob: Okay. And it was, you know, it was the haves and have nots because a little old plains refuge like Washita in 1970, there’s no way we could compete with waterfowl use days for some of east coast or west coast. Well, we had to do something. Well, in the back of the book, monarch butterflies were worth 50,000 RBU’s and we had a host of those little colorful suckers slinging through there. You ever try to census monarch butterflies?
Mark: No, but I just heard this story…
Bob: You did, okay.
Mark: …’cause we’ve just put millions of dollars into monarchs.
Bob: Okay.
Mark: And I told an old time refuge manager you might have known
named Denny Holland…
Bob: Oh, I know Denny, sure.
Mark: …about this. And he said, “I got to tell you a story sometime,” which he
hasn’t told me, “about the RBU’s for monarchs.” He was looking for them, I think, in South Carolina or something.
Bob: Well, we were looking for, in fact, you have to realize in the refuge managers were only as good or as successful as the crew, the staff. And we were so fortunate in those early days and today too, of having some fantastic people. Well, can you imagine here’s an old, hard core farmer, rancher that is now wearing the FWS patch (and you know I, am one of them now!). And a young pup manager coming out of the office and saying, “Well, Jack, I want to go out and count monarch butterflies because we’ve got to get our RBU count up.” And it was like “well, what are we going to do.” So they took a refuge vehicle and I said, “Just go back out in grazing unit 5, get a count, come back.” And he came back and he kind of laughed, he said, “Saw a lot of them!” So being a good refuge manager, we decided okay we’d extrapolate; I said, we ought to have at least 25,000 of those. Okay 25,000 times 50,000 RBU’s; man we shot to the top of the list, because it was budget-oriented. The more, supposedly, the more RBU’s, the more your budget could be.
Mark: Yes.
Bob: Well, when my whopping 67 million RBU’s for monarch butterflies hit the Schmidt brothers in Washington, I’m sure the laughter could have been heard across the hall and it was like, “Well, nice try.” [Laughing] They wiped it out so. That was the beginning of, you asked how it had changed. 5
Mark: Yeah.
Bob: That’s kind of how it; we from pretty much seat of the pants, I mean, adapting and working with established wildlife management principles, but at the same time feet on the ground, tires on the trails, that type of thing to managing by computer and a lot more technologically-based.
Mark: When did that come in, PPBE?
Bob: 1970, ’71 in that range; I was at Washita in western Oklahoma. And that’s about the time, and you know the Service is great for having meetings and training sessions; that probably hasn’t changed.
Mark: No.
Bob: And I can remember…
Mark: Hence this place.
Bob: By the way, are there people here today training?
Mark: Yeah, yeah, we’ll have a couple groups…
Bob: Okay, good. Well anyway, that was probably the biggest change when we went to PPBE. And then the next was the computerization, however, and I don’t know how many managers would agree with me on this, but the real change, politically, management oriented-wise, came, and I don’t know whether you were in Minneapolis at the same time. But it came about when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made the regional directors SES’s, Senior Executive Service. A lot of perks, unlimited annual leave and having a lot of benefits, but it removed them from the protective umbrella of Civil Service. I was around when a regional director received a phone call saying, “Clear out your desk, you’re no longer the regional director.” Prior to that the directors, the regional directors were there for years and years and years, and really developed a staff and a management philosophy . When that came about, I’m sure there were benefits to changing over, and a lot of people did that. But the establishment of the regional directors as a Senior Executive Service Branch, or SES’ers really changed the complexion of the Service.
Mark: Now Bob, even by our agency standards, you moved a lot. Why was that, I mean people did move, but I’d say on average people that worked in the same period as you, maybe six stations but I heard even more than that in your…
Bob: We had 13 stations; a couple of them were complexes. But the philosophy back then, Mark, and I guess it’s understandable that they no longer can afford, budget-wise, to do that. A lot of the refuges, most of them were rural, of course, and they had housing; old farm houses, old ranch houses. In some places, Monte Vista for instance, they built complexes; Fish Springs, there was nothing for a 150 miles so they built complexes out there. That, I guess, by having refuge housing it enabled young managers to move, to gain an experience base without being burdened by selling this house, trying to find a rental home, that type of thing. And it provided, I think, a flexibility for the management staff in the regional office. But the philosophy then, and I can still 6
remember the regional supervisor, Marc Nelson, fine gentleman; since passed. His philosophy was, “I want to expose my young managers to as many different refuge management programs. You may start out on a wintering area, but I want you to go to a transition area, nesting area experience is next one, and the only way you can do that is to move.” There was also an unwritten rule that you did not get a grade increase, in place; you could not go from a 5 to a 7, you transferred. You could not go from a 7 to a 9 in place, you transferred. And it was unheard of to go 5, 7, 9, 11 and up to the, what we referred to then as the GS-a millions, in one place; you could not do that. I retired as a very high step 13, but it took 33 years to get there and a lot of moving. I was fortunate I have to put in an plug for my wife, who’s standing over there. You could not have done something like that without a family that was totally behind you, and I’m sure you’ve heard that and seen that from a lot of folks.
Mark: I’ve heard that from everybody, it’s a team effort.
Bob: It really is. And actually, one thing that the, I think, the managers today, and I don’t say this in a disrespectful way, but it’s kind of an 8 to 5 job now. It’s good and it’s bad; there are a lot of pluses and minuses. But when you lived on the refuge 24 hours a day, you became so intimately involved and familiar with the goings on, and I’m not sure that same feeling is there today because at 5:00 you lock the door and you drive 50 miles to your home. Whereas we might have walked 50 feet to our home and then got a call, “Number 2 crossing is washed out, we need…” you know that type of thing. So there was, I think, a big change when the refuge housing was kind of pushed to the side. Good, bad, I don’t know.
Mark: What was the housing like; somebody that stayed in 13 of them.
Bob: We started our married career in a 16 foot travel trailer with sling bunk beds; we soon modified that, but that was in the desert of Utah. I followed, I missed working for the great director, Lynn Greenwalt. Lynn was the original manager at Fish Springs, and he left just shortly before I arrived with Lyle Stemmerman as the manager, and Lyle just passed away here a couple of months ago, was not able to visit with him much. We went from the desert of Utah, trailer, to a home in Colorado where as we irrigated the front lawn in the spring, it washed the balls of snakes that had been hibernating under the house into the yard and my wife didn’t think that was at all necessary. And I advised her that they were also considered wildlife and could not be dispatched. And we ran a trap line in several of the houses, catching mice and I don’t know how many we caught that first summer in Colorado but we’d be there at night, half asleep and, “SNAP, SNAP.” And it was all right if they were killed outright but when you just wounded them the trap would kind of bounce around the house. We had, we had lots of “fun” experiences; she put up with a lot.
Mark: Still is from what I understand.
Bob: She still is.
[Laughing]
Mark: What was, to just go back one last time, what was your first job like at 7
Elk Refuge, besides being drop dead gorgeous? I know the vista well.
Bob: Unbelievable. It was a summer irrigation job. At that time the Elk Refuge had alfalfa fields and, you know, tame grass fields that we would irrigate and it was critical because the snow melt lasted such a short period of time and we needed to make use of the irrigation water as quickly and as efficiently as possible. So they had three of us (Les Beaty, Gary Lunt, and myself) that were summer irrigators, and then as we worked into the program, I think they used that, and the manager was kind of, “We’ll see how these boys do. And if they show any promise, we’ll get them out of the hip boots and let them really see what a refuge is about.” And I was fortunate enough to end up doing a lot of the census work, high mountain lake trumpeter swan census work; just kind of a general orientation. The early managers, at least in my career, were, and I really benefited, they were interested in developing young managers and seeing that their career move forward, but they were also equally as ruthless. If they didn’t think you were interestedor could cut the work, you didn’t last very long; the phone call, and it was like, “Well, thank you, we appreciated your service and hope you do well.” You know that type of thing. But the National Elk Refuge was, for a young fellow, just outstanding. All biological work, and all in the field. And one of the things that my wife has reminded me of, as you move up in the career chain, you move farther away from the field. As an assistant manager at Salt Plains, you know, I was plowing fields, cannon netting geese, coordinating muzzle loader rifle hunts, waterfowl census. I did, later on in my career, just to kind of add spice to the life, I went ahead, and with the approval of a fine gentleman in Minneapolis, went ahead and got my commercial and instrument pilot’s license. And we had a Service plane, [number or November] 708 stationed at my headquarters there in Quincy, Illinois. So for the last, oh ten years or so, I served as a dual function pilot and refuge manager; got to see a lot of the country; it was a fun tour.
Mark: Tell us a little about the booklet you brought down here today.
Bob: We had, as I mentioned to you, when we drove in, this training facility is just fantastic. The first one at Arden Hills, Minnesota was a bit different! I think the goal was the same, how they reached it was certainly a little different.
Mark: Do you remember the year of that?
Bob: May, April/May 1966 probably in that range.
Bob’s wife: Sounds about right.
Bob: The very first one was in 1965, and that was kind of the, we’re going to see how this works. And they had a small staff and a smaller number; ’66 was the first where they brought young managers in from all over the country. And very formal, you did not have a very relaxed atmosphere; Dr. Green, Dr. Bill Green was the director of the academy. Forest Carpenter, supervisor of Region 3 was kind of the main mover and shaker behind that, and there were several others from Washington, but very, very formal. You did not go to the classroom except in your Class A with a tie; those are those old gabardine wool, stand them 8
in the corner and wait for you the next morning.
Mark: We have them in the closet here.
Bob: Well, I’m going to be buried in mine, [everyone laughing] that was the only thing they were good for!; you know people are going to say “My, doesn’t he look nice in that.” But it was very formal and very, very structured. Now the list that I gave you of the original instructors, most of those gentlemen
sadly have passed away. But they were photographers, law enforcement agents, refuge managers, fisheries biologists first and then they were pressed into service because of their expertise in the field to come and tell us young folk how it was done. Most of that group went on, with very few exceptions, to have long term careers in the Service. And one of the first managers that I ever worked for; I had this idea that it would be real good to maybe be a biologist and move to Washington. And he took me aside and he said, “Bob, I want you to know that refuge managers always have a land base attached to their position. All you have in Washington is a desk, if you’re lucky.” And he said, “You make the choice.” And I had several opportunities to move into the offices, but for our personal needs and enjoyment we stayed in the field and I haven’t regretted a single moment of it; it’s been great.
Mark: Is there anything else you want to add before we…?
Bob: No, other than, I would like to say that the staff that you have on refuges, and a lot of them are called by different tit
Keel, H., Dec. 9, 1994, Part 2. Mark Ferguson interviewing Heber Keel.
No full textPart 2 of Mark Ferguson's December 9, 1994 interview with Heber Keel. Mr. Keel discusses the steps to pickling fish, unloading fish into the stage, drying fish, shipping fish, storing fish, selling fish to merchants, and growing vegetables
- …
