Introduction
Federal US agencies apply various techniques when it comes to managing refuge systems related to the land and wildlife. Obtaining a refuge is essential in terms of the protection of certain species by creating the circumstances in which said organism is inaccessible to predators and external factors interfering with its well-being. The concept relates to the mitigation of such risks as invasive species, excessive hunting, deforestation, and other factors that disrupt the balance within the ecosystem. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the US Forrest Service (USFS) are two federal agencies established to confront the need for refuge management to ensure the wildlife is conserved and protected. However, while the entities have similar objectives in regard to conservation and supporting ecological causes, the frameworks they use in relation to refuge management are different. In this paper, the differences in the approaches of USFWS and USFS will be discussed alongside the similarities and the benefit of each framework.
Allowable vs. Multiple Use Management
As mentioned prior, both organizations are motivated to conserve wildlife, and one of the measures that helps achieve the goal through refuge management. The US Fish and Wildlife Service manages fish, plants, wildlife, and natural habitats to ensure the management strategies maximize the benefit for the American citizens and minimize risks related to the endangerment of certain species, deterioration of fisheries, and similar challenges. The US Forrest Service, on the other hand, manages national forests and grasslands. Thus, the aim is to sustain natural resources with the purpose of providing people with the necessary benefits while ensuring the activities do not lead to the deterioration of the land. The objectives of the organizations and the aims when it comes to benefiting people ultimately illustrate the different approaches when it comes to refuge management.
USFWS has implemented an allowable use framework to maximize conservation efforts. Thus, however, does not imply that commercial activities are prohibited on the territories under the control of the agency. Nonetheless, all services such as camping, guiding, photography, rentals, agriculture, and access to the sites have to be confirmed and allowed by the agency (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2022). For example, if the allowable take of golden eagles is approximately 2300 as measured through calculations aimed toward balanced conservation, hunting premises shall not exceed the number (Millsap et al., 2022). The measure helps the entity ensure that the aforementioned activities do not interfere with the conservation objectives and will not negatively affect the areas. Thus, the resources can be used, and the lands can be interfered with of the said agency determines the activities to not correlate with negative side-effects to restoration and conservation policies.
USFS, on the other hand, operates under the premise of the multiple-use framework. The concept highlights the idea that the forests are used for more than one purpose. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 protects the concept of having a multi-use approach to natural resources obtained in the forests protected by the USFS, highlighting that the land is to serve as a conservation entity ensuring effective refuge management for maintaining a balance within the ecosystem while replenishing the natural resources later used by people (US Forest Service, 2022). Thus, the agency is to consider that the objective of restoration and conservation go hand-in-hand with maximizing natural resources such as timber. As a result, it is inevitable that while a similarity is the aim to assist in regards to ecological objectives, the difference is highlighted in the multi-use approach, which is to include additional purposes such as acquiring natural resources.
The two frameworks, while different, both have benefits and correlate with certain limitations that are to be discussed. On the one hand, USFWS can maximize the agency’s success when it comes to conservation efforts since this is the central premise. Needless to say, since commercial activities are allowed if they do not interfere with the primary goal, the entity is able to acquire financial support and rely on the profit from the aforementioned services. However, this is also a limitation since the regulatory implementations do not imply replenishing natural resources, hence, providing people with the needed goods through authorization. Moreover, the profit is lower, and the agency is limited in regard to investments in further conservation practices.
The multi-use approach, on the other hand, is effective in terms of profit and resource replenishment while less practical for conservation measures. An example is noise impact which occurs on building sites, deforestation actions, and construction activities and interferes with the ecological objective (Taylor & Schwaller, 2018). However, since the objective is to maximize natural resources, such limitations are not valid enough to limit activities related to the acquirement of wood and similar aims.
Conclusion
Several strengths and limitations correlate with the allowable use framework implemented by USFWS and the multi-use model applied by USFS. The strengths of the allowable use strategy are the maximization of conservation efforts and the focus on environmental aims, as well as the authority of the federal agency in determining commercial activities. However, the weaknesses include limited profit that can later be invested in further ecological aims as well as the limited assistance to natural resource replenishment needed by people. The multiple-use framework, on the other hand, is beneficial in assisting people with their needs and creating profit. At the same time, the limitations correlate with fewer opportunities for conservation and a more complex aim that does not facilitate activity delegation. Moreover, the framework limits the agency in determining whether the commercial processes are ethical or are to be minimized.
References
Millsap, B. A., Zimmerman, G. S., Kendall, W. L., Barnes, J. G., Braham, M. A., Bedrosian, B. E., Bell, D. A., Bloom, P. H., Crandall, R. H., Domenech, R., Driscoll, D., Duerr, A. E., Gerhardt, R., Gibbs, S. E., Harmata, A. R., Jacobson, K., Katzner, T. E., Knight, R. N., Lockhart, J. M., … Watson, J. W. (2022). Age‐specific survival rates, causes of death, and allowable take of golden eagles in the western United States. Ecological Applications, 32(3).
Taylor, P., & Schwaller, A. (2018). Management considerations for noise impacts on the Superior National Forest and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143(3), 1805–1805.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2022). National Wildlife Refuge System. FWS.gov.
US Forest Service. (2022).Moving mountains at the Forest Service. USDA.