We should be proud of our past. A century has gone by since Iowa Congressman John H. Lacey first created the federal wildlife officer profession by sponsoring the Lacey Act of 1900. Since that time, our rich history has been filled with countless men and women who have devoted their lives to protecting the world's wildlife resources in an effort to save species from extinction. 

Although we were too late to protect some species like the passenger pigeon, our officers did play significant roles with the survival of others such as waterfowl, the bald eagle and the wolf. Unfortunately, the mood of today's federal wildlife officer is anything but celebratory and the atmosphere is more reflective of a wake than a party. 

Isn't it ironic that after 100 years of risking our lives for wildlife, it is the wildlife officers themselves that are now under siege and face possible extinction? Our agents today continue to face severe manpower shortages, lack of funding, and liberalized laws and regulations that are riddled with loopholes. Survival within is a feat in itself.

Our rich history is filled with many heroes that we should not forget, with officers such as Ray Holland, John Perry, Cecil Pedifer, Willie J. Parker, Fred Jacobsen, Larry Merovka and others who were instrumental in eliminating the early market hunters, those professional killers who accelerated the decline of many species during the early century. 

Whether we were called Lacey Act Inspectors, U.S. Game Wardens, U.S. Game Management Agents or the like, these fellow officers were a brave breed who were determined to halt the disappearance of many animals from the wild, especially migratory birds. 

Some officers, such as Edward A. Lindgren and Edward B. Whitehead, were willing to give up their lives in order to protect migratory birds. In today's bureaucracy, I can't help but wonder if being killed to protect robins and ducks sounds as noble as it must have back then? 

The dedication and courage displayed by our officers was astounding when you consider incidents such as the 1920s Spring waterfowl enforcement detail along the Illinois River when U.S. Game Wardens Kenneth Roahen and Marquis Charlton were shot gunned at close range by market hunters at a time when assaulting a law enforcement officer did not even cover wildlife officers. 

When you consider that wildlife protection has taken a backseat to the desires of many special interest groups today, I am not certain the risks are worth it. Today, these same heroes would likely be ridiculed for their passion for protecting migratory birds and they'd probably be considered an enigma by some within the agency.

Until recently, migratory bird protection had always been the backbone of our profession. After the passage of the Weeks-McLean Act of 1913 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which authorized federal protection for migratory birds, widespread resistance to the Act was received from hunters and the States alike. 

However, the agency did not cave to the pressure from these groups back then. Since migratory bird protection was very important at that time, U.S. Game Wardens such as Ray P. Holland were actually encouraged by U.S. Chief Game Warden George A. Lawyer to apprehend any waterfowl hunters who violated the Act. 

It was on March 6, 1919, when Holland apprehended Frank W. McAllister, Attorney General for the State of Missouri, with sixty-six (66) ducks killed out of season. In the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case heard by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, known as Missouri v. Holland, federal migratory bird protection was declared important by Justice Holmes when he called migratory birds "a national interest of very nearly the first magnitude...but for the treaty and the statute there soon might be no birds". 

In today's climate, I wonder if Holland would have still been encouraged by the agency to apprehend the Missouri Attorney General for these same violations? With the recent liberalization efforts to the MBTA, I speculate that the outcome would have been somewhat different. We've all seen in recent history what could happen.

We have not forgotten how the agency stood by and allowed Congress to gut migratory game bird protection through the passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 1998. To make matters worse, the agency then liberalized the regulations and put a spin on the changes declaring them beneficial to promoting waterfowl habitat. Although the only real benefit to bird protection in the Act was the enhancement of the penalty section, that too is now in jeopardy ! 

Many of those same legislators who were responsible for the changes are now pursuing further liberalization through the passage of H.R. 4296 and S. 2472. These bills are now moving through the House and Senate and if passed, they will reduce the penalties for all migratory bird violations. Time will tell if the agency will once again stand firm for wildlife protection or submit to the desires of special interest.

The recent events in the native village of Kwigillingok, Alaska, help convince me that the agency no longer considers wildlife protection primary to other interests. 

For years, the agency has apparently taken a subtle approach in convincing the native hunters that the use of lead shot was a leading cause in the declining population of the emperor goose and that these geese should not be shot during the native Spring hunting season. So as we met year after year, we sat and watched the emperor goose population dwindle to less than 50,000 birds in Alaska. 

Well, it was bound to happen and during an inspection interview of a group of angry hunters, the situation turned dangerous for our agents as numerous hunters arrived on the scene and quickly surrounded our agents with shotguns in the ready-fire position. In addition, a plan was heard being discussed on a local VHF radio that indicated some in the village were planning to shoot the helicopter down with high-powered rifles. 

Thankfully, we will not have to etch the names of these two agents on the granite walls of the officers memorial since they got out of the area without harm. However, questions must be asked... Why did we send only two agents to a village already known to be very outspoken about tribal sovereignty? Was the safety of our fellow officers compromised in any way? The agency must decide how serious it is in protecting the emperor goose. 

If it is decided that the goose is important enough that our officers are needed to accomplish this goal, then proper manpower, money and equipment must be provided to ensure the safety for our agents. The agency should not continue to send their agents to battle for wildlife with their hands tied behind their backs...that is a fight that cannot be won and the ultimate risks are too great. 

Though before my time, I can't help but think of the stories I heard from our older agents who fought the "Klamath Wars" and how this situation resembles those days, except back then, I expect most of us would have received a call to pack our bags and head up north for a few weeks...

Properly funding law enforcement and providing adequate manpower have historically been the Achilles heal of the agency. The Year 2000 is no different and is reflective of a trail blazed by early agency managers who still today neglect to understand the positive role that wildlife enforcement plays in the overall management program. 

The skepticism I shared previously regarding the "pot of gold" coming our way is quickly becoming a reality. The $12 million anticipated budget increase requested by the agency to rebuild our depleted forces has now been decreased by Congress to $900,000. Even with this dismal news, Chief Kevin Adams remains optimistic and was quick to point out to the Region 3 agents during In-Service that hopes still run high that the Senate will come to our aide and help provide the needed funding...I am again skeptical. 

The Chief also mentioned that the 30 new agent hires are still being planned for this Fall and an additional 46 agents will be hired the following year assuming funding comes through. Without proper funding, it makes no sense to hire new agents only to raise the threat of operational shutdowns on our current agent workforce throughout the country. 

So what happens now? It seems our profession is slowly being eroded away from all directions and morale is running at an all time low. I suspect we will we continue to see a flood of retirements which will allow the ARDs to cannibalize on salary savings by not filling the vacant positions.

In addition to losing agents to retirements, the threat of losing agents to the Medical Program is also becoming a reality. It seems that the Medical Program continues to hamper some of our agents with off the wall requests. However, the overriding issue that I have is with the language being used on the Medical Review forms by Dr. Goldhagen. Allowing Dr. Goldhagen, to deem agents "a significant risk to the health and safety" of themselves and others simply because there is a potential that the agent could lose their eyeglasses is disturbing to say the least. Those statements are absurd. 

I wonder if I could use my "expertise" to state in writing that since a certain reviewing physician and his cohorts were planning to hunt waterfowl in Utah, there would likely be a significant risk to these subjects that they would violate the MBTA hunting regulations ....hmmm. 

On behalf of our members, I have written a letter to Chief Adams to voice the FWOA position on this matter. I am convinced that this medical program has the potential to affect us all. When I look at our pioneer agents like Larry Merovka, who served as a U.S. Game Warden from 1924 to 1965, I wonder if he would have survived all forty-one (41) years had he been subjected to the rigid medical program that our agents are under today? 

How many of these heroes would we have lost because their glasses could have potentially been dislodged during a confrontation? I also wonder how many heroes we are going to lose in the future because of this medical program? We are all getting older. However the threat of throwing away an entire enforcement career in our latter years because we have aged is a cause for concern. We keep hearing the word "accommodate", however I can't imagine that all of us will be sent to Washington as desk officers...besides, doesn't the stockpiling of "disqualified" agents as desk officers suggest a double standard when it comes to these medical standards and how they are applied to agents in the field and agents in WO?

We owe it to those early federal wildlife officers who struggled in the Louisiana bayou, the Alaskan tundra, the rocky coasts of Maine, the eastern shore of Virginia, and the back rivers of Illinois, to carry on the traditions of the last 100 years...They had many tough times too. Even with all being said, I would have no other job. Protecting wildlife is an inherent passion born to some of us. The torch has been passed and we must not let it fade, even amongst the wind storms we now face.

News , TOP , Next, Home,