Talk:List of National Wildlife Refuges

Untitled

"Weymouth Woods Sandhills Nature Preserve" in NC seems to be a garbling together of a NC state property and the Carolina Sandhills NWR in SC. Deserves further reserach tho.

"* Chilkat Eagle Bald Eagle Preserve " seems to be garbled (1st "Eagle" is extra) version of a AK state preserve.

I've eliminated some variant names that are not federal, but those left should mostly be checked further. (The ones i was pretty sure about are noted only in the summaries from my deletions of them.)

Using "site:fws.gov" in the Google search is good source of authoritative info.

--Jerzy(t) 04:29, 2004 Apr 17 (UTC)

There are actually now 9 Regions. Region 1 was split into two regions and Washington DC is a region. A good map can be found at http://www.fws.gov/where/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moleher (talk • contribs) 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reordering list

On this list, would it be helpful if we moved NWR units refuges under their parent administrative unit refuge? For instance, for the ones in Alabama, it would move from

Alabama

• Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge
• Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge
• Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
• Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
• Fern Cave National Wildlife Refuge
• Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge
• Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge
• Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge
• Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
• Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge

to

Alabama

• Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge
• Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
• Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
• Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge which also administers
  • Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge
• Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge which also administers
  • Fern Cave National Wildlife Refuge
  • Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge
  • Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge

This would help break up the monotony of the list as well as providing a way to see how the NWRs are related to each other. Any thoughts? ClarkBHM 15:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an idea, but Joe Wikipedian probably won't understand it. Also how do you define a "unit"? Simply as a refuge under the administrative controm of another (i.e. the St. Johns NWR is administered by the Merritt Island NWR) is logical, but the St. Marks NWR itself is divided into three "Units"... - Aerobird 18:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My use of unit was to mean a named article (ie St. Marks NWR, not the parts within St. Marks NWR), but I understand your confusion. The first NWR on the Alabama list, Bon Secour, has five different units but I would keep it as one. Thus, I've struck the word unit above. I guess I'm looking for a way to distinguish the larger NWRs from the smaller ones, especially those that are unstaffed and/or closed to the general public (and as such are administered elsewhere). ClarkBHM 18:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this would be fine. I started all the NWR's in Montana and when I did, I indented subordinate nWR's under their parent site some time ago...It looks like someone also did this to the red-lined sites in Oregon as well. I didn't add "which also administrs" in the Montana section but that can be added as well.--MONGO 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it could work. [/curmudgeon] - Aerobird 01:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I did some of the Oregon ones, or at least edited them, so I think this idea is good. I wonder if "which also administers" is necessary? If it isn't immediately clear, it should become obvious by following the links. An explanation at the top of the page would be helpful as well. I'm merely suggesting this to reduce page clutter. Many, but perhaps not all, of the refuges that are administered in this fashion include the word "complex" in their name. Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges Complex is an example. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Which also administers" is not necessary. I just put it on there to explain why some where indented and others were not. That's why I included it, but if the consensus is to leave it out, I'd have no problem with that. ClarkBHM 05:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with leaving it out. BTW the 'complex' name thing is definitly "not all" - none of the FL "externally administered" refuges (St. John's, the ones in the Keys...) have that title. - Aerobird 14:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

NWR redirects

I'm posting this here as its more likely to be seen by people who are interested in NWRs... Three refuges (maybe more) are being redirected to names representing the location instead of specifically the refuge. So far, I've found:

1. Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge redirects to Farallon Islands
2. Johnston Atoll National Wildlife Refuge redirects to Johnston Atoll
3. Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge redirects to Okefenokee Swamp

Should we make an effort to differentiate between the refuge and the physical location? ClarkBHM 14:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If they can be expanded enough to warrant a separate article without duplicating most of the content, then sure. But unless there is something distinctive to say about these NWR as NWR apart from the geographic term, there's not much point in having two articles. BTW, these should probably be marked as {{R with possibilities}} (maybe they are, I haven't checked). Oh, and the redirected terms should be bolded within the articles too. older ≠ wiser 14:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Other (non-NWR) examples are:

1. Mount Rushmore National Memorial redirects to Mount Rushmore
2. Statue of Liberty National Monument redirects to Statue of Liberty

It is a bad idea in my opinion to have two articles unless the case is compelling to do so. Often, the result is a maintenance and consistency headache. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC) IN both of these case cited, it's more likely that someone is going to google Statue of Liberty or Mount Rushmore...but I feel that in both cases, the redirect should be to these titles and the main article should be the officially designated one of the U.S. government. Just my thoughts.--MONGO 05:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My thought is that they should be separated to some extent. In my opinion, the protected area infobox should be used for ALL refuges. The way several of these are setup, they clash with the general formatting of the already existing NWR pages. ClarkBHM 14:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

None of the NWR's listed above have had an infobox...we can add that and clarify in the opening sentences that part or all of the area is federally managed. It's a wiki so I see no reason the articles can't reflect the federal designations well delineated.--MONGO 00:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Article request

Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tailsfan2 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument

I beleive this entity completely replaced the old United States Pacific Island Wildlife Refuges complex but it seems to serve as a de facto complex for the US Minor Outlying Islands. Therefore I left it on this list with the old redirect as I see some of the US Fish and Wildlife admined monuments as pretty intertangled with the refuges. If any purist out there wants to delete it since it's now a monument not a refuge though, I won't object. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)