# They want to discard Wildlife Refuges????



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

List of national wildlife refuges that agency wants to discard 
By The Associated Press
The Associated Press - Tuesday, October 18, 2005

North Dakota national wildlife refuges that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to discard. On all six refuges, the Wildlife Service owns property easements, which gives the agency some land-management rights, but it does not own the land itself.

___

BONE HILL LAKE, LaMoure County: Established in May 1939 as a 640-acre refuge. Most of the refuge land is farmed, and part is being used to raise elk. The land has a farm house, farm buildings and a fertilizer plant.

CAMP LAKE, McLean County: Established in May 1939 as a 1,212-acre refuge. It shrunk to 585 acres in 1974. Refuge uplands are farmed, and neighboring Strawberry Lake has extensive development, including more than 150 cabins, a resort, boat docks and a beach.

COTTONWOOD LAKE, McHenry County: Established in June 1939 as a 1,013-acre refuge. The lake's dam and spillway are in disrepair, and its land includes two large farmsteads, two permanent homes and a seasonal mobile home. The lake is deep and has been developed for fishing.

LAKE PATRICIA, Morton County: Established in June 1939 as a 1,434-acre refuge. It shrunk to 794 acres in 1949. The Game and Fish Department manages the land as a wildlife refuge under an agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service.

SCHOOL SECTION LAKE, Rolette County: Established in December 1948 as a 680-acre refuge. It shrank to 297 acres in 1996, most of which consists of the lake itself. The Fish and Wildlife Service has little jurisdiction on the refuge, except for the lake itself, and wants to transfer its water rights to the Game and Fish Department.

SHEYENNE LAKE, Sheridan County: Established in December 1948 as a 1,273-acre refuge. The land is already owned by the federal Bureau of Reclamation, which acquired it for Garrison Diversion, a now-dormant effort to bring Missouri River water to the Red River Valley. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department manages the land as a wildlife management area.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I hope the GNF will be able to look at these tracts of land and possible aquire them or manage them as they see fit. It could add to and inhance the opportunities available to the North Dakota outdoors


----------



## MOSSBACK (Jun 10, 2004)

The best way the state can inhance opportunity is to leave all the land mentioned in a game sanctuary.

Nothing scares me more than some of these federal blue sign refuges becomming open to public hunting.

Refuges were put there for a reason, to give the wildlife a sanctuary take that away and you will not see as much game in those areas as you see now.

I should add that they were looking at doing the same thing to a federal refuge near my folk's farm. They wanted to lift the easment and wanted the land owner to open it up to plots public hunting. He said no way that refuge was established for a reason and still serves it's purpose as a waterfowl rest area, Plus it also serves as a sancutary for deer during the gun season. Plus he winters his cattle there and does not want every tom dick and harry hunting there.

More and more land is being opened up to public hunting, pretty soon there will not be any hunting opportunities because there will be a lack of game. These refuges are crucial to mantaining the quality of hunting we enjoy here in North Dakota.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

From a friend



> The bad thing about this is that since these are easment refuges, most of them will go back to whoever owns the land. The ones they said are being farmed (the first three) would more than likely revert to the landowner and more than likely no one will be able to hunt their anyway. It would seem to me best to leave them in a refuge if they can't guarantee public access. Why throw something away if there is nothing to gain? The ones that would be managed as a G&F WMA, I am all for.


I agree, Dont throw them away, ALL wildlife uses these areas not just waterfowl.

Bob


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

It sounds like these refuges are marginal at best. Why waste tax dollars if they're no good? Put the money somewhere more productive.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Not aware of the others, but I am very aware of the Bone Hill property as it is two miles straight east of where I grew up! I can tell you that this property is owned by an individual who is a very decent guy and is hunter friendly. I can tell you also that if I owned this property, few hunters would be allowed to hunt it. It is a true resting area for waterfowl and because of the way it is laid out, it would be unsafe to allow hunting other than for upland. The creek that runs through goes right by the farm, through the pasture which they have cattle and elk in year around. Outside of that area the creek travels and passes right through another farm site with two homes and cattle in it!

Little of the ground could be hunted safely for deer and only a small portion for upland. ND sportsmen will loose nothing if this property reverts back. The owners will still protect the resting area for waterfowl as it sets right in the middle of the pasture. He nor I would allow anyone to hunt it because of the livestock!

The grassland on this property will also remain in large part because of terrain. Over the years little or anything has been done the USFWS to enhance this parcel. However the landowner has done things to encourage wildlife such as pheasants and deer!

I have shot a lot of birds that use this property as a roosting area. So have a lot of other people. That will not change regardless of what takes place here. The worst thing that could happen to this property is for it to become open to hunting without the landowners supervision.

We all talk about needing more rest area's in the state. Well private or federally controlled access to this land needs to be restricted. I most likely if weather does not freeze it over, shoot ducks and geese in Nov that are using this! Allowing public access would ruin another rest area of which we have to few already!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Problem being Ron, That hunter/wildlife friendly guy cannot and will not live forever. Something needs to be done so these spots can go on as is for perpetuity.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

What are these people thinking, doesnt the wildlife have enough pressure already. Bob do you have anymore to this story?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

This is all I can find.

Federal agency wants to shed six wildlife refuges 
By DALE WETZEL Associated Press Writer 
The Associated Press - Tuesday, October 18, 2005
· advertisement ·
BISMARCK, N.D.

A federal agency wants to shed six of North Dakota's national wildlife refuges, a move that is drawing protests from an environmental spokesman.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says the change will not affect conservation, although it will give up water rights and open areas that have been off-limits to hunting. North Dakota's Game and Fish Department wants to take over management of four of the six refuges.

"There is going to be really no impact, because there is no waterfowl use occurring now anyway," said Lloyd Jones, the service's North Dakota refuge manager. "There isn't going to be a change in the uses that are occurring right now."

The six refuges were established in the 1930s and 1940s by acquiring permanent, limited property rights from landowners, called perpetual easements. The refuges are part of a group of 39 similar wildlife sanctuaries that are known as "limited-interest" refuges.

The easements left the land in private hands, but gave the Fish and Wildlife Service some authority over the property's use. The federal government built small dams to hold back water, and banned waterfowl hunting to provide resting and breeding grounds for migratory birds.

Wayde Schafer, a North Dakota spokesman for the Sierra Club, said it was unwise for the Fish and Wildlife Service to give up its easements, because a federal agency may hold them forever. North Dakota law limits other easement owners, including state government, to 99 years.

The Game and Fish Department could manage the refuges cooperatively with the federal agency, and Gov. John Hoeven could allow state acquisitions of upland property from refuge neighbors if they were willing to sell, Schafer said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is using private development of land near the refuges "as an excuse to walk away from them," Schafer said. "We don't think this is a realistic plan."

The affected refuges are Camp Lake, Cottonwood Lake and Sheyenne Lake in central North Dakota; Bone Hill, in LaMoure County; Lake Patricia, in Morton County, southwest of Mandan; and School Section Lake in Rolette County, near the Canadian border.

The federal agency's divestment plans are coupled with a study of possible management changes to the other 33 "limited-interest" refuges during the next 15 years.

North Dakota's Game and Fish Department already manages the Lake Patricia and School Section Lake refuges as wildlife areas, a Fish and Wildlife Department report says. The Sheyenne Lake refuge is now owned by the federal Bureau of Reclamation, and Fish and Wildlife involvement is minimal, the report says.

The Cottonwood Lake, Camp Lake and Bone Hill refuges have developments nearby, and are not suited for waterfowl habitat, the report says.

Jones, who is a former North Dakota Game and Fish Department director, said the changes would not result in less environmental protection for the refuges.

"We wouldn't be doing it if we thought there was any impact to conservation, or resources, or anything else," Jones said. "They are not fulfilling the goals or purposes of the refuges the way it was originally intended, and we just think it makes sense to turn over management to others, where it would be more appropriate."

Fish and Wildlife Service divestments of wildlife refuges are rare, said Linda Kelly, an agency conservation planning chief in Lakewood, Colo. It happened most recently in 1999, when the service dropped its easement interests in Lake Elsie, in North Dakota's southeastern corner. The lake is in Richland County, just southwest of Hankinson.

"There is a process the service goes through, but it happens infrequently," Kelly said.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Dan I do not disagree! I should have pointed out that this land I hope would stay in the Refuge system. However if it does not, staying private will benefit wildlife and hunters much more than seeking to make this public access as it most likely would be if the state seeks control. I only commented on this property because I am familiar with the layout and the surrounding area and the landowner.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

Thanks Bob for your time and research. I hope what ever happens (sounds like its out of our control already) will be good for the wildlife trying to think positive.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

The small refuge that Ron is writing about is full of Canadas and mallards as we speak. It is a roost for that area. It is very important to the hunting in the Jud area. This must remain a refuge.


----------

