Trump Admin will ask Congress to eliminate USGS Biological Resources Division

[MTtrout]

Anyone that thinks the dismantling of the federal natural resource agencies to this level is going to have a positive impact on our lands, water and wildlife is blowing smoke up their own a…

The cascade effect is more than most realize. Who funds a lot of our wildlife organizations like the national turkey federation, mule deer foundation, pheasants forever, …? The list goes on. They don’t have endowments like RMEF does. They receive a lot of federal dollars to do their work. No more money no more work

 

[mostlybirch]

nobody to track our wildlife means nobody knows when they start to decline and disappear. nothing about any of this is about fraud, waste, or abuse, its a red herring. its regulatory capture all the way down

 

[CJ19]

Anyone that thinks the dismantling of the federal natural resource agencies to this level is going to have a positive impact on our lands, water and wildlife is blowing smoke up their own a…

The cascade effect is more than most realize. Who funds a lot of our wildlife organizations like the national turkey federation, mule deer foundation, pheasants forever, …? The list goes on. They don’t have endowments like RMEF does. They receive a lot of federal dollars to do their work. No more money no more work

right. i am pretty tired of NGOs receiving tax dollars and most of them doing work i don't agree with. i strongly disagree with your point. I am sick and tired of the DC swamp and big conservation inc is disgusting in this regard. Donate to the organizations you like if you want them to do their work.

 

[MTtrout]

right. i am pretty tired of NGOs receiving tax dollars and most of them doing work i don't agree with. i strongly disagree with your point. I am sick and tired of the DC swamp and big conservation inc is disgusting in this regard. Donate to the organizations you like if you want them to do their work.

OK so where should our tax dollars be spent on benefiting land and wildlife? The DC swamp might be our elected officials and not folks who work for the federal government.

 

[CJ19]

OK so where should our tax dollars be spent on benefiting land and wildlife? The DC swamp might be our elected officials and not folks who work for the federal government.

Agencies to run more efficiently. Not agencies as a way to launder tax dollars to their political allies and buddies which is what it looks like now. When you have ngos making most if their money from government grants, their mission starts to get blurred.

I can hardly think up a better example of things i hate more than the funnelling of tax dollars to ngos both directly and indirectly. Tracking that grant funding like all this other public slush and kick backs becoming impossible.

This secretive public funding resulting in things that help special interests and utter nonsense. Nonsense like 40% of conservation funding being required to be spent on things with a DEI component. Imagine that announcement and every major "conservation" ngo laumchimg major dei initiatives - with my tax dollars . Exactly the same can be said for net zero by 2035.

These are things i am completely opposed to, especially in their implementation under present liberal democrat leadership amd political direction. I think those things are catstrophic for public lands and conservation. Not helpful. More importantly, they are catastrophic for me. I dont want to drive an electric car, live in a pod, eat insect protein, or be fenced out of public land because of solar farms.

 

[RyanT26]

Anyone that thinks the dismantling of the federal natural resource agencies to this level is going to have a positive impact on our lands, water and wildlife is blowing smoke up their own a…

The cascade effect is more than most realize. Who funds a lot of our wildlife organizations like the national turkey federation, mule deer foundation, pheasants forever, …? The list goes on. They don’t have endowments like RMEF does. They receive a lot of federal dollars to do their work. No more money no more work

Honest question, not trying to be a dick or argumentative.
It has been beat into our head that the state manages the wildlife for the residents. It does not matter if the wildlife is on state, federal, or private land. The state does it for the primary benefit of residents. Why should federal dollars be going to ngo’s or states to manage or study wildlife?

 

[mostlybirch]

Honest question, not trying to be a dick or argumentative.
It has been beat into our head that the state manages the wildlife for the residents. It does not matter if the wildlife is on state, federal, or private land. The state does it for the primary benefit of residents. Why should federal dollars be going to ngo’s or states to manage or study wildlife?

It's a good question, probably a not simple answer. Wildlife isn't solely for the benefit of hunters. Ecological diversity is good, people pay a lot of money to go see wildlife in National Parks, and we should be (IMO) stewards of lands for future generations. Wildlife doesn't always respect political borders. Studying an animal that inhabits large areas, say across states or countries, is likely more efficient at a higher level and work isn't repeated by each state.

 

[wyosam]

Agencies to run more efficiently. Not agencies as a way to launder tax dollars to their political allies and buddies which is what it looks like now. When you have ngos making most if their money from government grants, their mission starts to get blurred.

I can hardly think up a better example of things i hate more than the funnelling of tax dollars to ngos both directly and indirectly. Tracking that grant funding like all this other public slush and kick backs becoming impossible.

This secretive public funding resulting in things that help special interests and utter nonsense. Nonsense like 40% of conservation funding being required to be spent on things with a DEI component. Imagine that announcement and every major "conservation" ngo laumchimg major dei initiatives - with my tax dollars . Exactly the same can be said for net zero by 2035.

These are things i am completely opposed to, especially in their implementation under present liberal democrat leadership amd political direction. I think those things are catstrophic for public lands and conservation. Not helpful. More importantly, they are catastrophic for me. I dont want to drive an electric car, live in a pod, eat insect protein, or be fenced out of public land because of solar farms.

That “secretive public funding” of conservation groups is not that secret. It’s public information and can be requested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wyosam]

Honest question, not trying to be a dick or argumentative.
It has been beat into our head that the state manages the wildlife for the residents. It does not matter if the wildlife is on state, federal, or private land. The state does it for the primary benefit of residents. Why should federal dollars be going to ngo’s or states to manage or study wildlife?

In some cases the wildlife in question doesn’t have much financial incentive for conservation for states, and sometimes the information gained from studying a species may conflict with the state’s interest. A lot of the money going to states and NGOs earmarked for this sort of thing is Dingle-Johnson/Pittman-Robertson money being used for conservation efforts as required by legislation. As far as habitat work, often projects on state or privately owned land are managed/funded by state, federal lands by the FS or USFW. My wife has worked for both state and federal agencies, and there has always been collaboration between the two so repetitive studies aren’t being conducted if the other agency has relevant data. It probably doesn’t work that way or that well everywhere, but it has been more effective than I would have guessed before seeing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RyanT26]

Fair points and I agree with some . That does not change the fact that the state manages wildlife. It does not and should not matter whether that is a game animal or a non-game species. Animals in national parks are still managed the state?

 

[Gila]

No one owns the wildlife. Ungulates are part of fragile ecosystems. And there is a finite amount of critical habitat to support those ecosystems. The state residents should have preference to get tags because a big chunk of each Wildlife Department’s (Fish-Game) funding is derived from each states taxes and income. But non-residents have skin in the game too, because the federal excise taxes they pay on sporting goods goes back to the states for each hunting license they sell.

If a sport group like NWTF wants to increase hunting opportunity on public lands by improving habitat or restoring healthy genetic flocks, they will propose a project with a state’s Fish-Game dept. Since the Fish-Game Dept. manages those projects, state funding kicks in. The sport group will go out and try to get as much money from donations for the project as possible. Little funding if any comes from federal sources for restoring or improving game species. If it is critical habitat restoration for federally protected species then there is limited federal funding available (or was). That is why keeping our public lands intact is so important. Goes way beyond just having access to public lands.

In regards to the thread. Do we need the scientific data provided by the USGS for game species? The answer to that is probably not. The RMEF and other groups like NWTF, Billfish Foundation, Trout unlimited etc. employ their own scientists. Each State FG dept also employs scientists. We do pay for the science, one way or the other. But what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. The environment groups like Center for Biological Diversity need to pay for their own science as well! If we are forced into making cuts; this program doesn’t seem to have a high priority. If FWS thinks they need to hand out research grants to universities to shore up their science then it should be their call and should come out of their budget in my opinion. The same thing applies to each state.

 

[CJ19]

That “secretive public funding” of conservation groups is not that secret. It’s public information and can be requested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its supposed to be public. Everyone is fully aware of the shell games these organizations play and one ngo funding another ngo with public funding. Some public funding is easy to follow. A lot is not easily accessible and is hidden behind difficult to access records request or is intentional not disclosed in what can accurately be described as astro turfing campaigns.

Examples of public funding shenanigans are everywhere. Recently the USAID nonsense is a non conservation example. Randy Newberg shooting game for public funding at state funding level while hiding behind confidentiality agreements is another example of supposesly public information being hidden. When i get home tonight i can start combing through some ngo tax documents and providing some more examples if you want them.

 

[Gila]

Randy Newberg shooting game for public funding at state funding level while hiding behind confidentiality agreements is another example of supposesly public information being hidden.

I don’t understand. Could you explain a bit further please?

 

[CJ19]

I don’t understand. Could you explain a bit further please?

Az fish and wildlife hired randy and others to shoot sht as part of a marketing campaign. The episode didnt disclose it was an infomercial and az fish and game was not exactly upfront about it. Someone caught it and asked and randy came on here explaining this was a big "misunderstanding" and how az fg insisted on an nda or some such thing. State funding but federal funding examples of funding disclosures being less than forthcoming are abound as well.

 

[Gila]

I didn’t know that but it is certainly par for the course. I got into it with him and Buzz over their “advocacy” for the “Buffalo Commons Movement”. They also supported ARP grazing their bison on BLM land as those bison will never be on a table. In fact I wouldn’t have anything to do with BHA after that. However, they are in alignment with a couple of the issues here in New Mexico so I will support them with those issues in mind and only those issues.

 

[rogerdoger]

It doesn’t matter what you look at, conservation, green energy, fossil fuels, food, all money is getting moved around and benefiting a few while the taxpayers get ripped off. You can choose any of the following that fits your side and scream all day that it’s not fair and you can’t stand it. In the end every lobbyist for all items are crooks.

 

[elkhunter505]

Been a minute since I jumped on here but just in the CRU side of the USGS. When state agencies funnel their money through the CRUs, the university does not take an overhead fee. I think my university takes 35% of funds when they’re through a university professor, but all of the grants coming from the state agency are funneled through the CRU so rather than 650,000 of a 1 million dollar grant being available, the entire $1 million is available for the research itself. If the argument is that we need to fund this stuff back through the state, I don’t understand how removing the CRUs is not hurting the state agency by making their PR dollars not go as far. So just to be clear here, by removing a program that costs the average person 18 cents a year, you’re costing your state agency 35% of their research funds unless they do the research by themselves which they do not have the capacity to do without graduate students.

I’ll keep my comments to just the CRUs because I have much more knowledge of that program than the others, but I believe in all of the USGS programs and am very disappointed in the narrative surrounding public service jobs at this current time. We need a marketing campaign to change the narrative about public service positions. I’m amazed at the ratio of how many people see feds as bloodsuckers vs the amount I have interacted with that are truly not beneficial.

 

[CJ19]

It doesn’t matter what you look at, conservation, green energy, fossil fuels, food, all money is getting moved around and benefiting a few while the taxpayers get ripped off. You can choose any of the following that fits your side and scream all day that it’s not fair and you can’t stand it. In the end every lobbyist for all items are crooks.

correct. that is why so many people are glad such a wide ax is being swung. if a serious audit and honest audit of all these federal programs you mention above had been done, huge segments of the population would not feel that the chainsaw analogy for the cuts is appropriate.

 

[elkhunter505]

Just an update. The admin has put the CRUs on the chopping block using the RIF. There is a temporary restraining order on it that is arguing Congress needs to approve RIFs. I don’t know the details but without that court action, all the CRUs were going to be disbanded yesterday. If you believe in these programs please write your representatives. Thank you.

 

[2buffalo]

Just an update. The admin has put the CRUs on the chopping block using the RIF. There is a temporary restraining order on it that is arguing Congress needs to approve RIFs. I don’t know the details but without that court action, all the CRUs were going to be disbanded yesterday. If you believe in these programs please write your representatives. Thank you.

What is cru?