When most people think of protected areas in the US, they think of National Parks, of Yosemite, Yellowstone, Big Bend, and other sublime landscapes. The US model of national parks has been exported to many areas of the world including India, Kenya, Mexico, and South Africa. It has long been argued that the model is inappropriate for densely populated landscapes, or landscapes in which people have a less antagonistic relationship to the natural world [1]. There is little reason to doubt the soundness of this argument and, during the last decade, there has been a worldwide trend to move management options for protected areas away from the national parks model, according to which humans are only temporary visitors to an area, to one that calls more integration between biodiversity conservation and social development. It has also been pointed out that the US National Parks do a poor job of representing biodiversity in spite of occasionally containing large populations of endangered charismatic species, for instance, grizzlies in Yellowstone. This is also correct but not really unexpected because, until the 1980s, biodiversity representation was not an explicit criterion used to select areas for National Parks. Scenery mattered most [1]. But this “failure” of our National Parks is irrelevant to the question whether the US is doing an adequate job of representing biodiversity in protected areas. For the primary vehicle of protecting areas relevant to biodiversity in the US consists of our must less-known system of National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs).
Earlier this month I reported on visits to the Laguna Atascosa and Santa Ana NWRs. Last Sunday it was the turn of one much closer to home, the little-known Balcones Canyonlands NWR barely fifty miles northwest of Austin and north of Lake Travis. This NWR is still in the process of being created and the problems it faces are daunting. Its primary mission is to protect the endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and Black-capped Vireo (Vireo atricapillus), both of which have premium nesting habitat within its confines. The landscape is varied—as it has to be if it is to contain nesting habitat of both of these species, which have rather different preferences—and provides a representative sample of the variability of the Edwards Plateau.
Recent Comments