Received a message from Michael Sherwood, the lawyer from Earthjustice,
who is representing a coalition of environmental groups re the
controversy. Mike was the Asst. U.S. Attorney, Hawaii in the l960's and
handled some of the wildlife law enforcement cases I made for the USFWS
there. A good man.

Wilderness Society, National Audubon and the Oregon Natural Resources
Council among other conservation groups litigated against the USFWS for
allowing too many row crops not beneficial to wildlife on refuge lands,
using too many pesticides on those crops and by giving scarce water to
farmers for irrigation on the refuges even though refuge marshes were
drying up. The coalition lost a preliminary skirmish in a Federal court
in Sacramento last December.

After that the USFWS announced a new water policy whereby refuge
wetlands would get water first, then the farmers. If there was not
enough water to go around, then the farm leasing program would have to
be curtailed.
The farmers sue and the coalition was about to intervene for the USFWS.
Then the farmers dropped their suit.
In fairness to the USFWS, the agency had its hands tied somewhat because
the statute creating the two refuges specifically allows farming on the
refuges so long as it is CONSISTENT (my capital letters) with wildlife
conservation,
the Kuchel Act. The fight has been whether the USFWS has been operating
the farming program is consistent with wildlife conservation. At present
the litigation is over, but could renew. Farmers are dying hard. So it
could start up again.

That's a quick rundown of the problem. So you see, Federal and State
biologists do more than look at birds through binoculars all day as some
birders think they do. As the saying goes "It's a jungle out there!" It
all depends on whose bull is being gored.

Gene Kridler, Retired broken down USFWS biologist
Squirm, Wa.