A Discouraging Word on Wildlife Ranges: Interior Offers Half to BLM

The Department of the Interior appears to be orchestrating a jurisdictional maneuver within the National Wildlife Refuge System that could pose a threat to several rare species and prevent the achievement of the System's goals. The Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service, both within the Department of the Interior, are parrying against each other for exclusive control over five million acres of Wildlife Preserves, while the future of the peregrine falcon, the desert bighorn sheep, the Sonoran pronghorn antelope, and the black-footed ferret hang in balance.

The foci of this jurisdictional struggle are five wildlife ranges and game ranges in the West: the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range in Montana, the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range in Nevada, the Desert Wildlife Range near Las Vegas, the Kofa Game Range in Arizona, and the Cabeza Prieta Game Range on the Arizona-Mexico border. All were established by Presidential order, pursuant to a congressional delegation of power to the Executive,¹ and all are presently open to cattle grazing, insofar as that activity does not interfere with wildlife needs.

Wildlife ranges and game ranges are specialized members of the Wildlife Refuge System² where wildlife preservation and grazing are considered to be compatible uses. A wildlife range is under the primary jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); cattle grazing on wildlife ranges is managed exclusively by the FWS, which has shown itself to be competent to manage the range lands under its supervision. A game range is an element of the Wildlife Refuge System in which the Fish and Wildlife Service has jurisdiction over wildlife management, while the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) supervises grazing.³

There is undoubtably room for grazing in such ranges, and in certain instances grazing may increase the value of the lands for some types of wildlife. But on many of these arid lands the larger wildlife and beef cattle can become competitors for extremely scarce browse. Under such conditions, cattle can depend on their owners for feed but wildlife have only the natural vegetation for sustenance. The purposes of the Refuge System can best be protected by an agency which recognizes that in these few specially reserved areas the needs of antelope and other wildlife must have priority over the demands of the cattle industry.

Almost all observers agree that conflicts in agency policy render dual management of these lands undesirable. The difficulty arises in trying to decide which agency should exercise primary jurisdiction. Though the BLM is certainly an experienced range management office, it seems unusual to allow an agency whose concern lies in the promotion of the cattle and mining industries to intrude into lands whose primary designated use may at times be in conflict with those ends. The inconsistency of dual management is heightened by the demonstrated ability of the FWS to manage its own grazing lands, and by the fact that cattle interests can already turn to the BLM for kindly treatment on 450 million acres of federal land in other areas — 90 times the total acreage of the five areas in question here.

The Bureau of Land Management administers almost all of the federal lands set aside for grazing. These Taylor Grazing Act lands are vast, and are managed with the highest degree of concern for local needs and tradition.⁴ Unfortunately, part of this management program has been the enclosure of public range with fences that hamper the free movement of wild game and injure countless numbers of antelope that attempt to leap through the strands, even though fencing is available which would allow antelope (but not the larger cattle) to pass safely under the wire. The BLM has also advocated the use of chemical herbicides such as 2,4-D to kill sagebrush in some game ranges, even though the plant is a crucial element of the life pattern of the sage grouse, and even though the use of 2,4-D may cause a wide range of other environmentally undesirable side effects.

Lands of the Wildlife Refuge System are set aside for a different purpose than those under the Taylor Grazing Act. Their statutory purpose is the "protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with [4 ELR 10137] extinction."⁵ They exist to serve a broader public than cattle producers and miners; in theory, citizens of New York have as large a voice in the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range as do the residents of Nevada. The fact that grazing or mining is allowed on these lands does not mean that their administrators should be as fully responsive to the grazing and mining interests as would be expected on unreserved, unwithdrawn public lands. Refuges, like National Parks, are special purpose lands.

This latest, and perhaps final, jurisdictional dispute was engendered by two proposals for withdrawal and reservation of lands, issued by the Department of the Interior through its Arizona state BLM office on February 26, 1974.⁶ Although proffered through the BLM, the withdrawal and reservation had been proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (then known as the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife). If approved, the proposals would enlarge both Kofa and Cabeza Prieta Game Ranges, withdraw these lands from appropriation under the public land laws, including the mineral laws, and grant primary jurisdiction over these lands to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The withdrawal and reservation would be subject to valid, existing rights. These two proposed withdrawals were followed on March 19 by a third, which envisioned enlargement of the Desert Wildlife Range, already under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FWS.⁷

The proposals of course stepped on several sets of toes. The Bureau of Land Management is understandably reluctant to yield up its share of joint range management in these lands. Moreover, the BLM realizes that enlarging Fish and Wildlife lands means shrinking BLM lands — in this case to the tune of 236,000 acres, or over 350 square miles. Mineral interests are predictably disturbed, for while there are no active commercial mines in any of these areas, there are a number of unpatented claims being worked in Kofa. Grazing interests fear exclusion from the ranges, and point out that BLM has actively improved browse and water while wildlife has flourished. They assert that FWS supervision of the ranges has been minimal and ineffective.

Local protest has centered on the Kofa Game Range proposal, because there are goodgrazing lands and known areas of mineralization there. The more arid Cabeza Prieta range provides almost no grazing, and has been closed to mining since World War II, when an Air Force bombing range was overlaid on much of its territory. The third proposal for enlarging the Desert Wildlife Range seems least controversial. The Fish and Wildlife Service already asserts primary jurisdiction there, the range is presently closed to mining, and grazing is minimal. Only the BLM stands to lose significantly from the proposed 70,000 acre enlargement.

Local public outcry over the Fish and Wildlife proposals was immediate. Ranchers and miners demanded public hearings, which were held at Yuma and Phoenix, Arizona, in April of 1974. Arizona Senators Goldwater and Fannin both later expressed opposition to a FWS takeover, as did Arizona Congressman Steiger. The objectors demand at least a maintenance of the status quo, and clearly prefer a complete takeover by the BLM.

An unexpected event at the Yuma hearing provided observers with a further insight into the controversy. A local rancher who stands to lose substantial grazing privileges on the Kofa range under Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction read into the record a series of Department of Interior memoranda which had been furnished to him.⁸ The memoranda indicate that the ranchers' and miners' hopes of forcing transfer of Kofa, Cabeza Prieta, and Desert to BLM may already have been thwarted by internal machinations within the Department of Interior. The Department has evidently decided that Kofa, Cabeza Prieta, and Desert should be placed under the sole jurisdiction of FWS as soon as possible, a move than would seem in the best interests of wildlife protection and coordinated game range management. However, as a result of "additional discussions with BLM representatives," the Department decided to "prepare appropriate public land orders vesting sole jurisdiction of the Charles Sheldon and Charles M. Russell Ranges in the BLM."⁹ Thus it appears [4 ELR 10138] that a tradeoff is in the works which would give the FWS only the three southern ranges, putting the 2,500,000 acres of the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range and the Charles Russell Wildlife Range under exclusive Bureau of Land Management jurisdiction. The memoranda indicate that the proposals for withdrawals made in February were not a step toward unification of game range management under the Wildlife Refuge System, but rather the first stage of an interagency pacification.

Obviously, whatever one's viewpoint, this compromise will leave one half of the range acreage improperly managed. The internal problems of the Interior Department may be relieved, but the purposes ofthe Wildlife Refuge System will almost certainly be frustrated. It seems more likely that it is the two northern ranges, Russell and Sheldon, which will suffer from this act of expediency. If the BLM is properly oriented and equipped to preserve wildlife, one must wonder why these lands were reserved from the public domain, and why the Fish and Wildlife Service was created. The BLM's past record hardly justifies faith in its concern for wildlife, particularly when the interests of wildlife preservation are at odds with those of cattle raising. Wildlife ranges and game ranges are special lands with special purposes, and they deserve the protection of a specialized agency. They do not deserve to be bartered in order to settle an interagency livalry.

1. 16 U.S.C. §§ 683, 694 (1970).

2. Established under 16 U.S.C. § 668dd (1970).

3. Although this is in theory the proper nomenclature, it is not always correctly applied in practice; the Charles Russell National Wildlife Range is under the joint jurisdiction of the BLM and the FWS.

4. 43 U.S.C. §§ 315 et seq. (1970).

5. 16 U.S.C. § 668dd (a) (1970). Also see 16 U.S.C. § 668aa (b) (1970).

6. U.S. Dept. of Int. App. Nos. A 7950 & A 7951, 39 Fed. Reg. 8640, 8641 (1974). The terms "withdrawal and reservation" can prove confusing. In theory, federal lands are "reserved" when they are set aside for continuing federal ownership for a particular purpose. A national forest is a reservation of lands that will remain in federal ownership for the purpose of sound timber harvesting practices. Lands are "withdrawn" when certain specific uses are prohibited, or when a certain provision of the federal land laws no longer applies to those lands. Lands may be withdrawn from mineral entry, while remaining open to homestead entry, without being reserved for any particular purpose or for continuing federal ownership. The terms are commonly used incorrectly, or are joined together to cover all bases. Here, the Kofa Game Range, the Cabeza Prieta Game Range, and some surrounding lands have been proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry and from all other forms of public land appropriation, and are likewise proposed for reservation under continuing federal ownership for the preservation of wildlife.

7. U.S. Dept. of Int. App. No. N 219, 39 Fed. Reg. 11315 (1974).

8. Memorandum from Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior Brad E. Hainsworth to Secretary of the Interior regarding "Wilderness and Jurisdiction Proposals for the Game Ranges," (Jan. 29, 1974); Memorandum from Undersecretary of the Interior John C. Whitaker to Assistant Secretary — Fish and Wildlife and Parks, regarding "Wilderness and Jurisdiction Proposals for the Game Ranges," (Jan. 28, 1974); Memorandum from Deputy Solicitor for the U.S. Dept. of Interior David E. Lindgren to the Undersecretary of the Interior, regarding "Wilderness and Jurisdiction Proposals for the Game Ranges," (Feb. 19, 1974). All three memoranda are on file with ELR.

9. Memorandum from Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior Brad E. Hainsworth, supra, at 1, 2.