Leaders of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service oral history transcript.

              1

35 Years of Conservation History

A Conversation with the Leaders of

The US Fish and Wildlife Service

Hosted by: Rick Lemon

June 25, 1999

Rick Lemon:

Hello, and welcome to Thirty Five Years of Conservation History, A Conversation

with the Leaders of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I’m Rick Lemon, Director of

the National Conservation Training Center. We’re here in the studio at the

N.C.T.C., in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for an historic first for the Fish and

Wildlife Service. Today we have assembled thirty five years of leadership in the

Service. Collectively these Directors have served this agency long and well, and

their accumulated wisdom and experience can carry us forward successfully into

the next century. You know some of the tough fish and wildlife management

issues we face today maybe quite similar to those that resource managers faced in

earlier generations, and who knows, managers thirty years from now may still be

struggling with the same issues. We need to learn from our past. So today we’re

going to take a look back, not only to see where we’ve been, but also as a way of

charting where we’re headed. On behalf of the National Conservation Training

Center, and the entire Fish and Wildlife Service, I’d like to welcome five of our

2

distinguished leaders. John Gottschalk, who served under the Nixon and Johnson

Administrations, Spencer Smith, who also served under the Nixon Administration,

Lynn Greenwalt who was Director under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter, John

Turner, Director under President Bush, and our current Director Jamie Rappaport-

Clark, who serves under the Clinton Administration.

Our conversation with five of the Fish and Wildlife Services Directors devoted a

lot of time to history. Collectively the tenures of these five leaders span thirty five

years, from the Johnson thru the Clinton Administrations. We wanted to know

more about the issues that were significant during each of their terms, and what

was going on in society at large that influenced how the Fish and Wildlife Service

was managed. Here’s what they told us.

John Gottschalk:

The new great society initiative, which the President advocated and supervised,

and implemented, at the time that we were carrying on the war in Vietnam. In

point, the biggest difficulty was the funding problem that evolved. I say somewhat

lightly that the President told the country that we’d have both guns and butter, but

my butter jar was not nearly as full as it should have been at that time, the Agency

3

suffered. I would say it was a time that reflected not only the problem that I alluded

to earlier, namely those related to the war, but I think it’s fair to say that there was

a beginning of the resurgence of public interest in wildlife and conservation

generally. The concept of the wilderness program began then. The first

Endangered Species Act, in 1966 the second in 69, and the ultimate Act in 73, after

I left the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Spencer Smith:

We saw the first Earth Day in this nation. With that came the real enthusiasm for

environmental issues. A whole new support, that we in the Fish and Wildlife

Service had never had. A support that since that day has grown to be one of the

underlying foundations, of what we do and how we do it. So I enjoyed a new era

that was not only motivating to me as the leader, but I think more importantly was

motivating to both the Service as well as the Congress, and certain of the political

leadership. I came in under the Nixon administration, Rodgers Morton, the first

Eastern Secretary of the Interior, I don’t know in how many decades, maybe the

first one, who had a completely different philosophy on fish and wildlife,

utilization of fish and wildlife resources. Had a very sound conservation ethic, he

had been a member of Congress, was well respected on the Hill. Therefore it was

quite, quite easy to work through him, and to work with the Congress, under his

4

Secretarialship. Perhaps the Nixon Administration at that point and time had a

great deal of interest in the resources of the nation. But the way that the White

House was operated, those did not seem to flow down, through the Secretaries

office, and again this maybe, it may have been a result of the Secretaries stature in

the Cabinet positions, because of his back ground in the Congress. He seemed to

have, served the needs of both the nation as well as meet those expectations from

the Western Congressional people. One or two items, did raise some hackles. For

example a few days after he, came into office, we had looked hard at how we

stopped the use of a predator control chemical, 1080, felt that there was no way

that you could get it through the Congress and the Secretary just simply suggested

to the President, he do it by proclamation, Presidential proclamation and he did.

And you can imagine the reaction that occurred from the West. But we lived

through it and did so happily.

Lynn Greenwalt:

I have to say that Rodgers Morton was probably one of the most interesting and

indeed supportive of the Secretaries, because he was clearly, genuinely, personally

interested in the resource. Had a big farm on the eastern shore and he used to ask

us how should I do this farm and do it right. I took great pleasure in the attention

from this person. I was associated with an advocate Assistant Secretary, Nathaniel

5

Reed, who had made a name for himself by killing dragons in large numbers, in

Florida and elsewhere, and he was a noted dragon slayer. He wanted the rest of us

to be killers of dragons as well. Which was a whole lot easier for him to talk about

than it was for us to do. But we did our thing. On the whole, I think the political

area in which I worked was a supportive one. There were moments when I

fervently wished I had taken my mothers advice and become a truck driver,

because there were these instances where clearly we were not on the same wave

length with people in power in the Congress. I came along at about the same time

that as the interesting episode in our history called Watergate, and that caused a

certain amount of concern about the credibility of government, and how people

related to the leadership in government. There occurred at the same time the

advent of the third and most powerful Endangered Species Act, and suggested, I

think, the beginning of a time when the impact of the Fish and Wildlife Service

and the resources it represented began to be, become obvious to people. That we

touched peoples lives. I think very few, certainly not I, could envision the way this

would burgeon in years to come. And my tenure was through three Presidencies,

which says something I am not entirely sure what, I have mulled that over in my

mind many times, but in any event the, the role of the Service began to change

rather markedly because there was a beginning of a change in the structure and the

political dimension of government. All of this post Watergate, all of this, suddenly

6

conservation is serious business, because it effects the way people live and the

money they make and the things they can do.

John Turner:

Well if I think through my tenure it was not marked by political or social upheaval.

I think when I think of the change that the Service and its resources faced, I think

of two areas the demographic changes in this country, and second some of the

resource challenges. First in the demographic, and they have been ongoing and

continue today. First of all, we got a lot more people gobbling up a lot more of our

habitat per capita, a lot more folks to deal with. Second, I think, where this

agencies constituencies previously a lot of our country grew up associated with the

land, on farms, maybe hunting and fishing. So many of our population today are

urban, and do not have a back ground connected to the land. My back ground

having been a state legislator, out where people are pretty snarly anyway, in

Wyoming, I think helped me, because we ran a lot of our own interference, we did

not have a Secretary, or even an Assistant Secretary until my final year with former

Governor Mike Hayden. Who was really an advocate for our agency. We were,

we, our issues and priorities annoyed some of our brethren within the

Administration, so there was a great deal of trying to beat them to the pass. But the

Agency did well, I come in under President Bush and a Democratic Congress, late

7

in my tenure that switched, when President Clinton came in I served under a

Democratic President and a Republican Congress. The Agency did quite well, we

doubled our budgets, were able to launch a lot of initiatives, and a hole card the

Agency had, which surprises a lot of people to hear it, President Bush was a strong

supporter of the Fish and Wildlife Service. I remember times when OMB came

over scratching their heads said, this is very strange to have the White House

taking on a Cabinet member on behalf of budgets. President Bush maybe more

than any President since Teddy Roosevelt, was really involved with the out of

doors. He hunted, he fished, he cared about those resources, and very quietly he

helped me, and he helped this Agency. It was fun.

Jamie Rappaport-Clark:

In my eleven month tenure now, I think that I would continue on from what John

was talking about in his tenure, and say that our Agency is evolving into an

Agency that is extremely visible in the conservation community. Certainly we

have an significant role to play in the evolving science of conservation biology.

Looking at the land as a system, the Eco system approach to fish and wildlife

conservation, which we lead in the federal government, and not only how we went

about it, but how we embraced that concept. I see a resurgence of the National

Wildlife Refuge System, and a time shortly after my confirmation that we were

8

able to celebrate, the first piece of organic legislation, or the organic legislation for

the system, that anchored the mission of fish, wildlife, and plant conservation as

the mission of the Refuge System. Very exciting for us in the Service. One of the

continuing changes that is extremely obvious to me, and to all of us in the Service,

is the demographic changes that John was referring to. Urban sprawl is very real,

our refuges used to be remote, now there not in many places, there bumped up

against cities.

Rick Lemon:

Controversy is certainly no stranger to the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the job of

Director requires you to handle some tough issues. We asked five of our Directors

to recall some of the weighty issues of their times, and what factors influenced how

they made their decisions. They offered some candid, and at times moving

accounts of the pressures that only a Director of this Agency can feel.

John Turner:

As I look back, I think that the Spotted Owl is probably responsible more than any

other point for changing the way, permanently, how this country manages it’s

resource. It was a wake up call, certainly some of our other federal agencies will

never again be the same, because of Spotted Owl. It has changed those Agencies

9

dramatically, and I submit when the dust settles it will be for the better. But the

Spotted Owl was, indeed, a flash point across the country, continues to be

somewhat. But it really had an impact on this Agency on all of it Some of it

tough, some scars and wounds there, but the Agency did the right thing. It had a

major impact on how were going to do fish and wildlife conservation in the

decades to come.

Jamie Rappaport-Clark:

I remember the decision on the Spotted Owl like it was yesterday, and John was

right. I can remember walking down the Directors corridor to Johns office at the

time, carrying, which I’m sure you all remember, these huge packages of

administrative record on the recommendation to the Director for the Spotted Owl,

and walked into the Directors office and sat down. Here I am after months and

months of working with the folks in the northwest, trying to get a recommendation,

we were embroiled in litigation. It was Timber Vs The Environment, Spotted

Owls Vs Jobs, it was hugely significant point in conservation. So John was very

calm and deliberate, and he was asking me questions and I was briefing him and I

was laying out the record and he’s sitting there with a pen in his hand, and he said,

“Jamie is this the right thing to do”, and I said, I can remember saying to him, that

I am sure it’s between the ditches, I’m sure that we have a problem with that part

10

of the world, and we have habitat on the decline and we have a species on the

decline, and this is a signal for a need to kinda reenergize conservation in the

northwest, and he didn’t hesitate, he asked me about the process we had gone

through, he asked me what the biologists thought, he asked me about the science

and, and then the next day it was headline news, about the Spotted Owl. And like

all of my colleagues here, I have taken a number of lonely walks down the corridor

at eight and nine o’clock at night, thinking about decisions that are before me

whether it’s endangered species, or extended frameworks for migratory bird

hunting seasons, or early seasons, or F.E.R.C. re-licensing decisions, and, in the

end when I took this job I knew that first and foremost I was a biologist, and at the

end of the day I wanted to know that I was doing what was right for the resource. I

enjoy like all of my predecessors an Agency that is just chock full of tremendous

capability. Very deeply committed biologists and ecologists, and scientists, that

provide me the back ground and the knowledge to make the ultimate decision, and

I haven’t regretted a one. I feel very confident in every decision that’s been put

before me, and knowing the bench strength that we have in our agency makes it all

the easier. But watching John on the Spotted Owl was certainly, for me, a defining

moment, in what I thought a Director should do, and be.

John Turner:

11

I remember walking down the corridor the night before you came and getting some

phone calls from some very influential forces in Washington cautioning me not to

sign the listing package, and I said, well if that will prevail, then I’m, put the word

out that I will be heading back to Wyoming. So those forces cease and desist, and

we moved on, on the listing package.

Lynn Greenwalt:

My Spotted Owl was the Snail Darter, that was a glimpse at reality for some

federal agencies who, here to before, had believed that the Endangered Species Act

was a frivolity, that would if not go away, could be beaten into submission easily.

And everyone, I think, knows the history of the Snail Darter, and the fact that it

went to the Supreme court, and the nine Justices who said, it’s the law and unless

you wanna do what the law says, you gotta get it changed. That made life real in

earnest for people. My role in that decision was relatively uncomplicated because

clearly it was the right thing to do, and I could go down the hall and around the

corner to the other corridor and the man who sat there was ready to go. Where do I

point this gun and where’s the trigger.

John Gottschalk:

12

I didn’t have any quite like the Spotted Owl problem. One of the most difficult

ones was when we actively began to promote the idea of captive propagation of

Whooping Cranes as the initial step in starting the restoration program for

Whooping Cranes. There is a lot of misgiving on the part of a lot of

conservationist as to just what our intentions were. We were accused loudly and

widely of intentionally planning to put these birds in captivity and have a stock of

zoo Whooping Cranes from then on without attempting to put them back into the

wild. Unfortunately, the organization that we liked to consider one of our strongest

allies, was the National Audubon Society. I wont mention any names at this point ,

it turns out there was a difference, shall we say, in the opinions or the ideas of

some of the top people in the National Audubon Society. But one of them had a

close connection with the editorial editor of the New York Times , and the first

thing I know, theTimes had come out with an editorial criticizing the Bureau of

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, as it was know in those days, and John Gottschalk for

their intention of making the Whooping Crane a zoo specimen, instead of trying to

restore it to the wild. We fought that very hard, and as others have indicated, got

support from above, which is crucial under those kinds of situations. But that was

tough to have the National Audubon Society come out and viciously attack us for

what we weren’t intending to do at anytime, ya know. And I sat across the table

from a subsequent president of the National Audubon Society at a luncheon one

13

day, and I said, ya know, if you guys would just have the, gentlemanly instinct to

at least call us up and ask us or let us tell you what were going to do before you

decide to attack us, it would make life a lot more pleasant for everybody. Elvis

Star, Dr. Star was then the president sitting across the table from me when I said

this, he stood up, he say’s, ‘John that’s the way I like to do business” and sat back

down. The week later the editorial in the New York Times came out cutting us into

ribbons. So I had the fun of calling Elvis who apologized all over the place,

because he didn’t even know that some of his people we urging the Times to come

out with that kind of editorial. The fact remains of course that the program did

work. And interestingly enough, when it came time to think about the California

Condor, in the same context, that is whether or not it was proper to develop a

captive population of condors, who was leading the pack in favor of it. The

National Audubon Society.

Rick Lemon:

We spent the greatest share of our visit with five past and current leaders of the

Fish and Wildlife Service, talking about leadership. What goes into the decision

making process in this agency, and what traits someone must possess to be an

effective leader in today’s natural resource conservation world. There is wisdom

14

and guidance in their observations for all of us who will be called upon to lead the

Service into the next century.

Spencer Smith:

One of the fortunate things about being the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife

Service, is that for the most part regardless of party on the Hill, you are recognized

as a professional. And, I think that there is a respect first for the Chair of the

Director, and I really know of no instance in which a Director, of the years I have

known, the decades back, or the ones that have been there since I was there, have

not met that challenge of not only being in a chair that was respected, but being

respected in the chair. I think that is a real fine statement on the part of the

professionalism that our Agency has always had.

Lynn Greenwalt:

And no one ever saw us, even the politically appointed Director as being partisan.

Partisan for anything, you were partisan for the critters and the places they live,

and that’s what made the difference. As I saw my colleagues in other agencies

being beaten about the head and shoulders sometimes, and driven to do political

things. They looked at as and said you’re the pros you know how this works, go

15

forth and do good works, and that’s been the main stay of this organization for as

long as I can remember, and that is a very long time.

Spencer Smith:

I was most fortunate in that, I inherited an organization, that had been well

structured from a professional basis. We had individuals who knew their jobs, who

knew their obligation, they knew what was expected of them, which had been well

defined in their training ladder series. So as tough decisions came along, I like

Lynn indicated a moment ago, I had a staff. That you could look at and say

gentlemen we are going to make a decision and it’s going to be the right one. So

this was an easy transition, in taking over an Agency. The difficulties that I saw,

and the needs that I saw at that point and time, because of the changing public

attitudes, was to look to, how do we as an Agency begin to consider the total

resource program rather than the structured programs that we had. Those programs

were structured more or less in a column of functions, Refuges, Fish Hatcheries, so

forth. The public was saying to us this is great, but there is something there in this

environmental mystic, that needs to be incorporated, how do you look at the total

environment. Can you pick up a part of the environmental carpet, without the

whole carpet coming up, and we found out you could not. So I began to look hard,

where do we go, and the structuring of the decision process and the funding

16

process to come to that end point of getting away from refuges being the end point

of a program, to say migratory bird role of the Service being the end point.

Lynn Greenwalt:

I think I learned what may have been instinctive and that is you can’t do it all your

self, shouldn’t try. And you get people around you who are competent and

professional and demonstrate to them that they can do more than they ever thought

they could, and, pretty soon you will have a cadre of people, right down to the

lowest possible level, who are instilled with the idea that this is a great outfit, I’m

pleased to work here, and it makes it fun, and the Directors job is great, its

delightful, when that happens.

Rick Lemon:

How did you balance a biological and scientific decision like that, and we can see

on the monitor apparently praying. How do you balance the biological decision on

some thing like the reintroduction of the wolf into Yellowstone, with the fact that

you just came from Wyoming and many of your neighbors and ranchers and

friends, and probably family, and certainly politicians were on the other side of the

issue.

17

John Turner:

Indeed I think, prayer was a helpful tool during my tenure as Director. The wolf

issue is something, I think, the Agency and the Fish and Wildlife Service can be

very proud of, because the Agency stood tall on that issue. As people are aware,

my back ground is northwest Wyoming. I grew up on cattle ranch. As a wilderness

outfitter, most of that existing wolf habitat I’ve been blessed with the opportunity

to ride horseback over, ski over, or float through, during my lifetime. So I knew the

country and I knew the people. The twenty years, I was in the Legislature there

were two issues that grown men, tough old ranchers, railroad men, could stand up

on the floor and break into tears, and one was wolves. So, not having the

mentoring that Lynn had, I came to Washington and thought maybe with my back

ground, knowing the sensitivities and the legitimate concerns of ranchers, wool

growers, sportsmen, and the states had about wolf reintroduction, maybe that I

could play a role, convinced that the issue would not go away. I remember one

day that I came into the Directors office there in Interior, a couple of folks said

“did you watch the evening news last night, on TV”, I said no, and they said, “you

should have”, I said why, and they said “well someone you know and are close to,

I believe it was your brother was on the national news, tearing apart the idea that

the Fish and Wildlife Service. . .” So it was personal with me, it was an attempt to

18

travel the middle road between old ranching friends, that still hang me in effigy in

Wyoming, and some of our environmental friends that had visions of ecological

sugar plums that sued us regularly over the wolf issue. But, it is great to have

wolves back, I was committed, that before my bones go over one of those great

divides in Wyoming I wanted to hear a wolf howl in Yellowstone. It has been a

wonderful success. It was interesting the Fish and Wildlife Service and our

employees took the lead. When I initiated the effort, it was very apparent that some

of our brethren in other land, federal land agencies, wanted to scurry to the mop

closet pretty quick. As I look back through issues, wolves in Yellowstone, and

wetlands, and a half a dozen, and you ask how do you do that. There are two or

three things that come to mind Rick, probably one is you better look to the science

and hope that the agency had given you good science, but that’s the bottom line.

Second, you have professionals that you trust and you trust their judgement, and

then after you whittle on that a while. I think, in my place and I think my cohorts

here would agree. I think then that you reach down into your own personal system

of values. Your own judgement of what’s right and wrong, your sense of fairness,

personal responsibility, your obligation to the public, your obligation to future

generations, and I think there is a great deal of strength in that. Trying to do the

right thing takes a lot of the heat off.

19

Lynn Greenwalt:

My own experience was that, I all most never had to make one by myself, because

there were other, so many other people involved. I felt very comfortable about

what came to me from the folks below. It’s also my responsibility to convince

other people in the chain of command who believed they were in fact in control of

the Fish and Wildlife Service, that this was the thing to do.

John Gottschalk:

But, I would like to follow up on that, that amongst the accomplishments that the

Agency has made over time. Perhaps, the largest single development, if you want

to call it that, or discovery, was accomplished at Patuxent. When Lucille Stickle

the Director a very, a world renown chemist, and her people, were able to

demonstrate the biological and chemical reactions, in the formation of eggshell in

the presence of DDT, that caused the, prohibited, the animal, or the bird from

laying down the line that made the shell, and caused the near destruction of all of

our fish eating birds, or birds that were ingesting incidentally DDT. I do think, that

achievement should stand forever as a crowning achievement in wildlife, because

it not only, proved what Rachel Carson had said, but awakened the country to the

problems of contaminants in the environment in general. The only thing that I

want my grandchildren to remember, about me, is that I was the Director when this

20

work was done at Patuxent. I wasn’t the Director, I think Spencer was, when the

EPA, finally decided to cancel the registration of pesticide as a legal insecticide or

a legal chemical. But, I was the guy that went over and fought in the Congress,

fought agriculture, and the agriculture chemists flocked like mad to keep DDT.

There are still some of them who resent the fact that we outlaw it. But I got the

money, I shouldn’t say I, but I lead the charge to get the money.

Rick Lemon:

The second generation Fish and Wildlife Service employee, your father spent thirty

years on refuges, you grew up on refuges, what was the quote I heard this morning,

your father said he, “was starting a dynasty”. Coming up through refuges and the

time you spent in refuges, and the time spent in Law Enforcement, then you

became Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. How do you think that effected

the decisions that you made as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, do you

think those decisions would have been any different if you had come in from a

different organization or from outside of Government?

Lynn Greenwalt:

Well let me say something about having a father, trying to establish a dynasty, he

fell a little short of that. The impression that many people have is, I should have

21

known better, after being around a man who was for so many years in this trade.

But I over looked that kind of obvious thing, and I, along, I benefited a great deal,

because I was exposed to the history of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the

things that went on, and unique and in ways it can’t be duplicated. Ira Gabrielson,

was many times a guest in my mothers house. Clark Salliers, and many others,

people who’s names just sort of ring through the history of the Service, were at my

mothers dinner table. And, I watched them talk, and I would listen to my father

talk, and I’d ask questions. I took the job as Director and I had a distinct advantage

in many ways, in that, I knew a lot about the Service, I didn’t have to learn a great

deal. I had a good deal of, how should I put it, inspiration, I watched my father

work through periods when it was not at all popular to do what he did. He

managed his place and two or three others, during the war, the second World War,

and it was a lonely kind of thing, and he had some standards he adhered to, and he

talked to me about these a lot. He made it pretty clear why he did these things, he

was a newspaper man by training, and was articulate, and he could tell me what he

had on his mind, and so when I became the Director, it was not quite as difficult as

it might have been for other people to arrive at the place one felt comfortable with

a decision. Because I had a good tutor, I had many mentors, and he was a good

one. Therefore, I think, had I come from the outside, without my father as an

influence in my life in the way that he was, I might have made decisions not with a

22

different outcome, but through a different process, and it might have taken longer.

I made it abundantly clear early on, that it was going to be a little difficult to kid

me about any parts of the Fish and Wildlife Service, because, I knew a lot, and

those who would dissemble with me and attempt to lead me down a blind alley,

soon discovered I knew where all the alleys where, not all of them but I was

learning fast.

John Gottschalk:

I spent a great deal of time on issues that were somewhat foreign to the basic

mission of the Service. Helping to administer the Job Corp Program, and other

relief programs of one kind or another. Equal opportunity was very big and getting

started. We didn’t have any women working at Fish and Wildlife Service except

in, secretarial positions, ya know. One of the things that happened while I was the

Director was that we opened the manager series, and the wildlife refuge system,

and the first five women to be recruited on a professional basis, were recruited

when I was the Director. I don’t remember what happened to all of them, but

several of them made it in very good style. I take a lot of satisfaction out of that as

I look around and see how women have come up in the world, in the wildlife

world.

23

Jamie Rappaport-Clark:

I started my Civil Service career, almost, about seventeen years ago as a temporary

wage grade three, and then, I was so excited when I became a permanent GS five

technician, and I thought, boy I’ve made it. And when I was asked my career

goals, I thought well, I guess your supposed to have goals. I thought if I could just

be a GS nine, I would be home free, because I had such respect for the GS 9 Field

Biologist and what they were doing, and I really enjoyed my time in the field. It

has been, I’ve tremendous opportunities, and have been given tremendous

opportunities, by many of our conservation leaders. I think that as a career,

Director it had a number of impacts on our agency or a number of effects on our

agency. When my nomination was announced, I think that it was extremely, it was

exciting for our agency. It was exciting that one of their own was nominated by the

President. It was exciting that, that, it was a tremendous signal for the career Civil

Service employees of the country that, that one would be chosen to lead the

premier conservation agency of the country.

Lynn Greenwalt:

I could remember how refreshing it was, for me to go to the field and to just

present myself to a laboratory, or to a refuge, and watch the enthusiasm with which

people, “Let me tell you what your doing”. Ya know, sometimes I understood it

24

and sometimes I didn’t but they were so enthralled that I wouldn’t have it any other

way. My decisions like all the others were driven by, a sense of what was correct

and proper, for the resources. I had a colleague, in my early days who was not

terribly sophisticated, he was from the southeast, and his mantra was “are we

saving dirt ?” That was a question that I often asked myself, is this going to save

dirt someplace. If it did it was ok, if it wasn’t going to save dirt, and blood was

going to be shed, maybe we wouldn’t do this.

Jamie Rappaport-Clark:

I believe as Director, it’s really important to understand what’s happening out

there, and science is changing so quickly, techniques are changing and the way that

we’re doing business is changing so quickly, that it’s essential that as Director, we

keep on top of it. Or at least try to keep on top of it, figure out what’s going on. I

also believe the feed back is important. I can’t tell you the number of conversations

I’ve had with field and regional folks, that have been instrumental in my decision

making and kind of anchoring me in what I’m doing in Washington. The feed

back, the opportunity for the dialog, opportunity to hear what their thinking is

important. And I hope that it’s important for them as well, to know that their

leadership cares enough to see what’s going on and cares enough to engage with

them at the field and regional level. The importance of listening and hearing what’s

25

important, and monitoring the pulse, not only of our employees, but our

constituencies, and secondly of note, what I have learned is never underestimate

the passion and commitment of our employees, and the capabilities and the

dedication. I know that the Directors job is hard, I’m attempting to do it everyday.

But, it is equally difficult to be in the field, to be in the regions, to be in the

Washington Office, and get the job done, and learning, as Lynn had mentioned,

that we are not in this alone, as the Director of this agency. That we’re surrounded

by just incredible talent, is extremely comforting, particularly in tough times like

we’re having now for conservation.

John Turner:

Looking back on lessons, one I learned is always return your phone calls. Because,

the people that could hurt you or help you that you may not have thought, come

back to haunt you. The second thing I learned was, if you try to do the right thing

your not going to have to work so hard to remember, why and how you did

something.

Rick Lemon:

The five past and current Directors we talked with offered some great advice and

guidance to Fish and Wildlife Service Employees. Built upon decades worth of

26

experience leading this Agency. We started first with former Director John Turner

who had a few observations about what the future holds for the Service, and then

we heard from John, and our other Directors, about what it will take for all of us to

get through the challenges of the next century.

John Turner:

The two resounding themes are going to be partnerships and collaboration. It’s

how well we reach out to these new constituents, and expand that constituency, and

I think this agency is poised well to do that. It’s diversity of programs, committed

personnel, where out across the landscape eight hundred plus offices, and contacts,

and it is reaching out to land owners. One phrase that comes to mind from my

home area, “ you dance with the gal that brung ya”, and so I think the sportsmen,

we have to remember them, because they have brought a lot of dollars and will

continue to, to the table. But the one constituency that I, that concerns me still, and

that’s the animal rights movement. Because management systems, ecological well

being is simply not on their priorities. I think that is a constituency that is going to

continue to be a problem for the Agency, and in fact a hindrance, being able to do

what’s based on sound wildlife management practices, some of our traditional

constituencies.

27

Rick Lemon:

Thirty five years from now we are going to be showing this video tape to young

biologist coming into the Fish and Wildlife Service. Brand new biologists, first day

on the job. What one piece of advice would each of you like to offer that young

biologist, thirty five years from now.

John Gottschalk:

Well, my advice would be, to try to identify something to do that gives you a lot of

satisfaction, establish a goal for yourself, and then bust your butt trying to

accomplish it.

Lynn Greenwalt:

I didn’t have a life when I was Director, my own fault, my wife raised our son’s

and I did my thing. I will tell you that I have a life now, and I have had for a few

years, and I intend to have a life for a whole lot more years. But there was a time,

when I didn’t have one, and it was because I felt that what I did was overweeningly

important, in retrospect it probably wasn’t. The world would have kept, had I spent

more time with a family at home, maybe it wouldn’t have. But I suggest that what

that proposes is that you look carefully at how you live your life. Because time is

short and it’s fleeting. Things go fast, and it’s important that you have a life. I

28

suggest you begin to learn early on how to make one and live it and enjoy it, and

don’t wait until your 66 years old or 67 years old to discover that life is great when

your with a companion and friend and a delightful person. Because there are

things important in life, and sometimes, sometimes, the bureaucracy is not it.

John Turner:

I think, I’d also say to have fun, follow your passions, be the best you can be, and

by that I mean, continue to learn. I would imagine the stretches in this profession,

technically, biologically, to stay on top of your profession, your going to have to, it

will be a lifetime of learning, and last I guess I would say, remember your

customer base. The people that have entrusted these resources to us, remember

those constituents.

Jamie Rappaport-Clark:

It is so important to go out ands get re-certified, to sit on the side of a mountain, or

to get up on a horse, and ride across grizzly bear habitat, or to see the spawning

work that we are doing with Salmonoids on the west coast. It’s makes you come

back to Washington, I think, a better person, and geared for the next couple of

months rush. It’s what keeps you going in DC.

29

John Turner:

The thing I regret, is what your doing Jamie, and I congratulate ya, is about every

quarter, stop, and enjoy the resource. Get that spiritual rejuvenation, either on a

trout stream, or climb a mountain. Cause the employees would say why don’t you

stay over and we’ll go canoeing or fly fishing or band pelicans or something, and

I’d say, no I got to many important things. Got to get back to Washington, the

stuffs falling, the ceiling is falling. I should have stopped, and, because I am an

outdoorsman, I spent my whole life in the out of doors, and to not stop and touch

base, kick some dirt, hug a mountain.

Jamie Rappaport- Clark:

Stay positive, to stay focused, to continue to learn, as we’ve heard before. The

dynamics of conservation are fast moving, and it’s extremely important for all of

us to stay current. I remember our most important constituent, and that’s the fish,

wildlife, and plants that’s we have been entrusted to take care of, and it’s through

your predecessors, like you see sitting here. Your colleagues, and yourself, that it’s

now your turn to insure the future of conservation, for the long term.

Lynn Greenwalt:

30

Stresses come in all kinds, and sizes, as I’m sure you know, but I will say for the

benefit of people who will be seeing this in time to come that today’s stresses are

the things you think about tomorrow, and chuckle over because they are just

exactly that.

Rick Lemon:

Or you block them out.

Lynn Greenwalt:

You block them out, < laughter>. What you do, is built upon, what has happened,

for many decades before, and that you have an obligation to make the most of what

has been given you. People who gave their careers, and in some cases their lives,

to make it possible for you to do something now in this first third, of the next

century. So your obligation is to understand what has gone before, and what was

intended as a result of the decision that people, like us, made in your behalf, and

we expect you, not necessarily to venerate them, but to recognize them, and honor

them, and observe that you must not diminish them in the slightest degree.