By Jim Matthews
In a stunning reversal that has mystified state Department of Fish and Game and federal Department of Interior personnel, the staff at the Mojave National Preserve has said it will not allow the state wildlife agency and volunteer workers to refurbish wells on the preserve so the water could be used by wildlife.
After a meeting in August, coordinated by the hunter-conservation group Safari Club International, the DFG staff "thought" it had been given the OK by the park service and Interior Department to maintain all man-made guzzlers on the Preserve and retrofit wells that were part of historic ranching operations for wildlife use. The DFG submitted a proposal in late August to refurbish 12 "wells for wildlife" that had been removed by outgoing cattle ranchers at the behest of the Mojave Preserve staff.
At a meeting last Monday to discuss guzzler and well restorations, the NPS staff turned a complete 180 degrees from the early August meeting in Ontario.
Bruce Kinney, a DFG biologist summarized the follow-up meeting September 13 in an e-mail sent to other DFG staff and volunteers involved with this project.
"Unfortunately, and in divergence from DFG's understanding from the previous meeting in Ontario, no progress was made to proceed with the well retrofits," wrote Kinney. "Regardless of DFG's understanding of the direction to proceed with this [well] project, MNP [Mojave National Preserve] stated their belief that to do so would place them in conflict with existing NPS [National Park Service] mandates and directives."
Kinney said the park service asked for a whole series of studies and documentation for retrofitting wells. DFG staff present "reiterated that based on our meeting in Ontario, our proposal was to request turning the wells back `on' at 12 distinctive locations in the simplest form as wildlife guzzlers; guzzlers that would require the least amount of impact and maintenance while providing water for wildlife. The only `study' discussed by DFG at the [August] meeting involved documenting use and selection by wildlife at the guzzlers AFTER RETROFITTING [Kinney emphasis]."
Kinney ended the memo with this summation. "Bottom-line: NPS mandates/directives require `maintenance and preservation' only, not `enhancement.' Well water extraction for wildlife guzzlers is considered by MNP to be `enhancement' and, as such, there is no opportunity at this time to support any proposal to use well water to establish wildlife guzzlers in MNP, inclusive of the 12 locations requested by DFG."
Enhancement? That cattle water has been there for over 75 years in many cases, and keeping the spigot on would be "maintenance and preservation" for the generations of wildlife that have used these water sources. It is not "enhancement."
The NPS has violated and continues to violate its own management policy by not evaluating the environmental impacts of shutting off this water, and it has never considered keeping many of these windmills and water facilities for their historic value — which is also a requirement in the preserve's management plan.
Kidney's memo also suggests that the NPS staff could and probably would cite private citizens who do any type of well or guzzler maintenance or repair without the necessary paperwork. That would include hauling water to existing water tanks on the preserve.
Cliff McDonnell, a Needle's hunter and one of the most outspoken advocates for keeping the cattle water on the preserve for wildlife, said that groups of sportsmen and wildlife enthusiasts from Needles have been hauling water to several tanks on a weekly basis since they've been shut off this year.
"There are usually deer waiting to come to the water," said McDonnell. "Each time they go out, there are two or three or more deer coming down to the water even before they leave the tank. These animals desperately need this water."
So now, will the NPS staff start citing groups from bringing water to these sites?
Unfortunately, there is no way to measure the wildlife losses that have occurred where the NPS staff have capped wells or directed the removal of over 125 cattle water developments, most in the last year.
But the DFG has data on how much wildlife increases when water is added to desert regions that either didn't have it or lost it. The most graphic example is Old Dad Peak, which is now within the Mojave National Preserve. Before the DFG added four big game drinkers to the range, there was a declining population of no more than 20 sheep in the late 1960s. The only spring in the range had gone dry, possibly due to groundwater pumping miles away, and the herd only had natural rainwater tanks that frequently dried up and barrel cactus. It wasn't enough. The DFG estimated they would be extinct in 10 years. The first drinker went in during the 1970s and the last in the 1980s. Today, there are over 300 bighorn in the Old Dads. The herd has been used for a number of relocations, with over 100 sheep from this herd moved to other mountain ranges where sheep had disappeared, and all of those populations are now thriving. Most have man-made water sources that are year-around.
How much wildlife has been lost with the removal of over 125 water sources in the Mojave Preserve?
Perhaps you should call Mary Martin, the superintendent of the Mojave National Preserve, and her staff and ask that very question. Ask for the science. Ask how they didn't violate their own management plan that mandates they document the impacts of their actions. Ask if it's about hunting.
During the meeting Sept. 13, one of the NPS staff said the only reason the DFG was interested in maintaining guzzlers or restoring the well water was to increase game populations so hunters could "kill more animals." The DFG staff were flabbergasted. They didn't realize until that moment that this was about the NPS staff's anti-hunting bias. They has assumed it was a disagreement about resource management.
Never mind that most of the wildlife that uses desert springs, guzzlers, and well water is not and never has been hunted game. Cactus wrens and roadrunners, Costa's hummingbirds, ladder-backed woodpeckers, kingbirds, shrikes and vireos, verdins, thrashers and warblers, plus sparrows and finches by the multitude visit these water sources. Small mammal footprints are everywhere around water. You can see where the wing tips of owls and hawks have touched the sandy ground as they swooped down on smaller prey. Deer and bighorn sheep tracks are everywhere in the soil around cattle tanks with water.
But because Martin and her band don't like hunter's who come for the dove, quail and deer, she's willing to write a death warrant for dozens and dozens of other species that also rely on this water.
I'm disgusted that this has turned into, as one DFG staff member said, "a political chess game," where good resource management takes a back seat to bias. Desert wildlife is suffering while we argue over a park service smokescreen called "enhancement." Prejudice is wrong where ever it occurs. This is NPS prejudice.
Copyright © 2004 J & D Outdoor Communications. All rights reserved.