On February 2, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed new regulations and updates to ...

On February 2, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed new regulations and updates to their policies that will restrict agricultural practices on wildlife refuges. While they claim these changes are to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the changes seem to focus on preventing agricultural practices on the land.

FWS is charged with ensuring the BIDEH of the National Wildlife Refuge System. In the past, they have made comments recognizing the advantage of partnering with farmers and ranchers for the benefit of all parties, including the ecosystem of the refuges. They further state that they will use the best available science to make decisions about the refuges. With this proposal, they seem to abandon both these practices.

In the proposal, they prohibit most use of genetically engineered organisms (GEOs), saying that the use of GEOs can have an unpredictable effect, and that peer reviews will likely be required. However, the United States already requires extensive scientific review before GEOs are allowed to be used. FWS is proposing to ignore the findings of other government entities who have done thorough research on the organisms and approved them.

They also propose to restrict pesticide uses on refuges, ignoring the work the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done to review the pesticides and approve them. They ignore the fact that pesticides are sometimes the only way undesired plants are controlled on refuges. This is especially true if grazing is decreased. Without the ability to spray the refuges, we risk an uncontrolled spread of noxious or invasive species of plants, which could be catastrophic to broad areas.

Most concerning, they increase requirements to use agricultural practices on wildlife refuges, often prohibiting them. The FWS does not list specific evidence-based reasons about why their prohibition would provide benefits. On the other hand, there are clear reasons prohibition would be a detriment, not only physically, but also economically.

As stated above, this proposal seems targeted to reduce agricultural practices on refuges. NEFB submitted comments focusing on the immense benefits agriculture provides for refuges. We hope FWS will take our comments seriously when bringing the final rule. As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to Kole Pederson, director of environmental & regulatory affairs, at [email protected].