An active and ambitious staff of engineers and managers attend to these aspects of development. But because some engineering and agricultural development is good, it does not necessarily follow that more is better. On many refuges the Board noted a tendency to equate any development with improvement. Some refuge plans were stronger in principles of agricultural engineering than of wildlife ecology. The refuges are intended to serve certain biological and social objectives, and their development should be guided primarily by the professional managers who are to make them function.
Ecological engineering is needed, rather than strictly agricultural engineering.
Frequently the same techniques are involved, but the ecological framework maintains and blends natural relationships with man-designed improvements. In the light of our plea for naturalism in refuge management, we suggest thoughtful moderation in physical development of terrain. A refuge property can be overdeveloped. For example, it is not necessarily the best practice to impound every possible acre foot of water to serve the needs of waterfowl. Some meadows and swales may better be left in puddles rather than be escalated into lakes.