Trump Admin will ask Congress to eliminate USGS Biological Resources Division

[Gila]

Those wind farms are absolutely a huge issue to sport fishermen on the east coast as the plan is to put them directly between shore and the offshore canyons that we typically fish at. In addition to the ecological impact of setting them up there is the issue of what happens when one comes apart like it did in New England and now you have giant chunks of partially submerged debris littering the water way. Not to mention the navigational issues arising from sticking hundreds of giant polls in the water in a place where fisherman regularly travel in the dark to reach the fishing grounds.

Then there is the significant possibility that they could put an exclusion zone around the wind farms. If such an exclusion zone was enacted there are significant portions of the offshore fishing grounds that would be effectively cut off or limited to only the largest boats with the range to get to them.

Take for example the Hudson Canyon, from our home port it would normally be a 100 mile run and take a bit over 3 hours to get there. If we had to navigate around the wind farms it would add over 60 miles each way adding an additional 4 hours to our total travel time. That effectively shuts down any option for a day trip for us and makes it impossible for many boats to actually reach the canyon in the first place.

I understand your pain. The last administration leased quite a bit of ocean off the coast of central California for future implementation. In executive order 14276 dated 17 April:
———————————————————————————————
“Most American fish stocks are healthy and have viable markets. Despite these opportunities, seafood is one of the most heavily regulated sectors in the United States. Federal overregulation has restricted fishermen from productively harvesting American seafood including through restrictive catch limits, selling our fishing grounds to foreign offshore wind companies, inaccurate and outdated fisheries data, and delayed adoption of modern technology.”
———————————————————————————————-

The problem is that in his effort to deregulate the industry, he has gutted the regional fishery management councils to the point that the fisheries management plans that could keep wind farms out will be difficult to implement. Seems like sport-fishing is usually caught in the middle between commercial fishing and the environmentalists. ASA (American Sport-fishing Association} is your Thor’s Hammer. I would contact them with your concerns for starters. Sport-fishing needs the commercial fishing industry to be regulated. Drift nets and longlines that have a high by-catch rate shovel billfish and mako sharks over the side. It really sucks to get on a wide open bite on big albacore one day and then go out the next day and not get a jig strike because the nets wrapped it all up.

 

[Chrisamx]

Some may call that claim, the claim that this will eliminate any chance of grizzly delisting in the Lower 48, hyperbole. It's not. It is fact. Those familiar with the ESA, the monitoring requirements for species population and habitat criteria is a basic necessity for delisting. That monitoring on grizzlies is coordinated by the IGBST. A delisting will never stand up to legal scrutiny without the basics of population and habitat monitoring. That's just a fact, proven by how hard it has been to demonstrate to the courts those monitoring safety nets that protect a species once it is delisted. In the case of grizzly bears, coordination of that monitoring is done by the IGBST, and as such, once that group of scientists is dismantled, so goes the monitoring mechanisms necessary for delisting under the ESA.

We have the Executive and the Congress, so why don't we just change the ESA?

 

[S.Clancy]

We have the Executive and the Congress, so why don't we just change the ESA?

Because it would take 60% in the Senate (which you also need to get legislation through) so Republicans would have to work on Democrats to get them to cross the aisle and basically no one in either house wants to do much of anything besides point fingers and blame the other side

 

[cuerro viejo]

Annual budget of DOI in 2023 was $14.5 Billion. BLM returned to treasury ~$8 billion. That is after takeoffs. The $20-30 Billion you are referencing was over a decade ago.

BLM gets money from Grazing leases, recreation, timber sales, etc (something like $700-800 million. These are basically subsidies with how cheap they are, especially grazing fees.

BLM also gets tons of money through extraction. Here is a link for the ONRR (office of national resource revenue). This includes offshore extraction.

Edit: Below is the change in grazing fees BLM charges over time. 2025 is same as 2019, $1.35 per AUM. That $2.31 in 1981 is worth ~$8.50-9 now considering 2-3% annual inflation. We could increase our grazing fees collected by multiples by just increasing the fee by inflation. Further, we are ~5% the cost of private land lease rates. Things to ponder

View attachment 870507

I don’t have dog in this fight but if you want higher prices on BLM leases then you need BLM to reinvest in permanent water. As it is now private that the lessors already own typically holds the water, so competition is sparse. I’m sure the permitting process for drilling wells on public is easy though.

There is also stock rates but nonetheless first and foremost water is the issue.

 

[menhaden_man]

No, ONRR is broken down into Tribal, onshore and offshore. Onshore is BLM, which in 2024 was over $8 billion. I just realized I didn't link that (https://revenuedata.doi.gov/). You can see the breakdown there.

You are right, all agencies are appropriated money by Congress whenever they feel like actually passing a budget (which is almost never). My point was some (few) departments are at minimum budget neutral, or like DOI, positive due in large part to BLM, Bureau of Rec etc.

No, ONRR is broken down into Tribal, onshore and offshore. Onshore is BLM, which in 2024 was over $8 billion. I just realized I didn't link that (https://revenuedata.doi.gov/). You can see the breakdown there.

You are right, all agencies are appropriated money by Congress whenever they feel like actually passing a budget (which is almost never). My point was some (few) departments are at minimum budget neutral, or like DOI, positive due in large part to BLM, Bureau of Rec etc.

I just asked ChatGPT out of curiosity—not to be argumentative, just hard to believe anything in our government is truly budget neutral. Here’s the response:

DOI’s 2023 budget was ~$14.5B, funded by Congress. While BLM and other DOI bureaus generate billions (mostly from energy), that money goes to the U.S. Treasury—not back to DOI to cover its own costs.

ONRR revenue includes offshore, tribal, and other sources—not just BLM. Even when DOI programs bring in revenue, the funds are distributed elsewhere (states, special funds, general Treasury). DOI still relies on appropriated funds to run parks, wildlife programs, and tribal services—most of which don’t generate income.

So while DOI helps generate federal revenue, it isn’t budget neutral or self-funded.

More details here: https://revenuedata.doi.gov

 

[S.Clancy]

I just asked ChatGPT out of curiosity—not to be argumentative, just hard to believe anything in our government is truly budget neutral. Here’s the response:

DOI’s 2023 budget was ~$14.5B, funded by Congress. While BLM and other DOI bureaus generate billions (mostly from energy), that money goes to the U.S. Treasury—not back to DOI to cover its own costs.

ONRR revenue includes offshore, tribal, and other sources—not just BLM. Even when DOI programs bring in revenue, the funds are distributed elsewhere (states, special funds, general Treasury). DOI still relies on appropriated funds to run parks, wildlife programs, and tribal services—most of which don’t generate income.

So while DOI helps generate federal revenue, it isn’t budget neutral or self-funded.

More details here: https://revenuedata.doi.gov

Nothing in govt is "budget neutral" in your definition, because the money all needs to be appropriated. But an agency, or department, that makes more $$$ than it takes in appropriations could (and from my standpoint should) be considered budget neutral.

 

[S.Clancy]

I don’t have dog in this fight but if you want higher prices on BLM leases then you need BLM to reinvest in permanent water. As it is now private that the lessors already own typically holds the water, so competition is sparse. I’m sure the permitting process for drilling wells on public is easy though.

There is also stock rates but nonetheless first and foremost water is the issue.

BLM does tons of water projects, sometimes with partners like NRCS. In general, the lease holder pays very little, if anything. For instance, one FO in MT provides pipe, tanks, etc. Sometimes the lease holder is responsible for construction if it is a complicated project, but BLM equipment operators put in a lot of spring developments. I can't speak for all BLM offices tho.

The only real hurdle for wells for stock water is cost, unless you are in a basin closed to further ground water development by the state.

 

[cuerro viejo]

BLM does tons of water projects, sometimes with partners like NRCS. In general, the lease holder pays very little, if anything. For instance, one FO in MT provides pipe, tanks, etc. Sometimes the lease holder is responsible for construction if it is a complicated project, but BLM equipment operators put in a lot of spring developments. I can't speak for all BLM offices tho.

The only real hurdle for wells for stock water is cost, unless you are in a basin closed to further ground water development by the state.

I understand what they do, I’m stating what they need todo more of. Not surface catchments…. WELLS with solar pumps.

That’s the biggest hurdle to competition

 

[CJ19]

I understand your pain. The last administration leased quite a bit of ocean off the coast of central California for future implementation. In executive order 14276 dated 17 April:
———————————————————————————————
“Most American fish stocks are healthy and have viable markets. Despite these opportunities, seafood is one of the most heavily regulated sectors in the United States. Federal overregulation has restricted fishermen from productively harvesting American seafood including through restrictive catch limits, selling our fishing grounds to foreign offshore wind companies, inaccurate and outdated fisheries data, and delayed adoption of modern technology.”
———————————————————————————————-

The problem is that in his effort to deregulate the industry, he has gutted the regional fishery management councils to the point that the fisheries management plans that could keep wind farms out will be difficult to implement. Seems like sport-fishing is usually caught in the middle between commercial fishing and the environmentalists. ASA (American Sport-fishing Association} is your Thor’s Hammer. I would contact them with your concerns for starters. Sport-fishing needs the commercial fishing industry to be regulated. Drift nets and longlines that have a high by-catch rate shovel billfish and mako sharks over the side. It really sucks to get on a wide open bite on big albacore one day and then go out the next day and not get a jig strike because the nets wrapped it all up.

Maybe this makes sense to @CMP70306? Because it makes no sense to me. The democrat party platform is switching to 100% renewables by 2035. That means renewable both offshore and onshore at industrial scale. The Biden Harris Admin released press bragging that it bypassed and glazed over environmental regs to permit a recordbreaking amount of industrialized offshore wind turbines and equipment (11 facilities breaking record size and scale in addition to first in location such as the pacific NW). And the response here is....its trumps fault by deregulating commercial fishing? What? The biden press release explicitly says the trump admin was going too slowly.

Explain how the fisheries councils would stop these facilities? The permits are issued. The time for those councils to act would have been during the permitting process. They did not stop them for reasons unknown. I could speculate about political affiliation and what occurred when the Biden Harris admin intervened to push these permits through the approval process, but i wont.

Seeing renewables forced down Americans throats at breakneck pace has caused concern for a lot of people. Hunters, fisherman, people who dont want to be forced to drive an electric car or forced to use an electric stove or lawnmower. And as soon as the dems are back in control, we are going back to full throttle permitting of offshore wind and onshore public land renewables. So all those things can be forced on americans to save us from the climate.

 

[S.Clancy]

I understand what they do, I’m stating what they need todo more of. Not surface catchments…. WELLS with solar pumps.

That’s the biggest hurdle to competition

The hurdle is Congress won't change the fee.

And wells are expensive. Places like Eastern MT it takes 1000'+. Or, they could dig a catchment pit for almost nothing.

 

[cuerro viejo]

The hurdle is Congress won't change the fee.

And wells are expensive. Places like Eastern MT it takes 1000'+. Or, they could dig a catchment pit for almost nothing.

I understand but you can’t complain about the fees, when there is limited competition for it because of water. There is a very good reason why those leases are normally attached to bordering private ranches or ranchettes

Even on leases that have water troughs there is very large probability it’s piped in via poly pipe from a private well that the lessor owns, if he looses it there is zero water out side of seasonal catchments. You have to fix this if you want to be able to raise leases and create demand

 

[Idaboy]

It's all pretty complex isn't it...many good points....democracy is not efficient. But damn glad I live here....we have an active judiciary branch and active executive branch, "congress" seems more like a parliament in the past 10-15 yrs and seems paralyzed, so we just see this back and forth of executive orders/actions and court cases as a result unfortunately...but I won't pretend to know the answers. Appreciate everyone opinions on this thread.

 

[Idaboy]

The argument always seems to be that the states own the wildlife. Why should federal taxpayers be footing the bill? Trying to have it both ways doesn't work very well.

Potentially, I don't know..,it seems like it would be state dependent? Say Texas with less than 5% public land may have a much different set of circumstances of a Western state like Idaho that has like 60% public, or Wyoming that has nearly 50% federal....WY and ID likely don't have the tax base to manage The Frank, the Middle Fork.
, or YP, Grand Teton... Those areas get tons of visitors from outside those states. Yes maybe the "states own the wildlife" but the animals amd fish disregard the boundaries......guess maybe someone could explain how you merge these competing interests without having federal agency or federal research?.... So many layers

 

[mt terry d]

Trump Admin will ask Congress to eliminate USGS Biological Resources Division​

^^ Clickbait to keep the facade going.

I asked santa claus for a Lambo.

Better odds I get the Lambo than congress eliminating anything.

 

[S.Clancy]

I understand but you can’t complain about the fees, when there is limited competition for it because of water. There is a very good reason why those leases are normally attached to bordering private ranches or ranchettes

Even on leases that have water troughs there is very large probability it’s piped in via poly pipe from a private well that the lessor owns, if he looses it there is zero water out side of seasonal catchments. You have to fix this if you want to be able to raise leases and create demand

They are attached to neighboring property because it comes with the purchase of the property. Sometimes they are not neighboring, but the lease rights absolutely transfer with property rights.

Owner's can sub-lease to others if they don't have animals, but that is rare. Less rare is owners pay the fees regardless of grazing because of how beneficial they are to property values. There is high demand, at least in my area, for those lease rights.

 

[Gila]

Potentially, I don't know..,it seems like it would be state dependent? Say Texas with less than 5% public land may have a much different set of circumstances of a Western state like Idaho that has like 60% public, or Wyoming that has nearly 50% federal....WY and ID likely don't have the tax base to manage The Frank, the Middle Fork.
, or YP, Grand Teton... Those areas get tons of visitors from outside those states. Yes maybe the "states own the wildlife" but the animals amd fish disregard the boundaries......guess maybe someone could explain how you merge these competing interests without having federal agency or federal research?.... So many layers

States don’t own our wildlife. Countries don’t own the wildlife either. Pelagic fish species migrate around the world. Waterfowl hatched in the tundra end up on private property in Texas. Waterfowl hatched in Siberia, end migrate to Southern California and other SW states. Some Sand hill cranes winter in New Mexico. Elk, etc migrate to the US from Canada. Wildlife has no borders.

Typically states that have over 80% private lands don’t have landowners tags. Those states pay the landowner for public hunting access. Access contracts typically include habitat improvement requirements and easements for wildlife management. Western states need to get a clue. Land owner tags for sale leads to hunting and fishing privatization. The highest bidders get the opportunities to hunt private lands as well as public lands. What eventually happens is very few tags allocated to the public draw for residents and non-residents alike. The draw odds become dismal. Landowner tags are bad mojo for the economy, reduce hunting and fishing opportunity. Wildlife management funding is diverted. Trespass fees roll into private land tags.

The states with the worst privatization also have the worst wildlife management as well as the worst hunting, fishing opportunities. Some of the worst states for privatization are New Mexico and Texas. The best Western state for hunting and fishing opportunity as well as wildlife management is South Dakota. You can’t do any finger pointing here because South Dakota and Texas are Red while New Mexico is Blue.

Robertson-Pittman, Dingell, Great American Outdoors Act, funds wildlife management. There are other Congressional mandates as well.

 

[cuerro viejo]

They are attached to neighboring property because it comes with the purchase of the property. Sometimes they are not neighboring, but the lease rights absolutely transfer with property rights.

Owner's can sub-lease to others if they don't have animals, but that is rare. Less rare is owners pay the fees regardless of grazing because of how beneficial they are to property values. There is high demand, at least in my area, for those lease rights.

I’ve had BLM, NF and State leases in two different states on ranches I’ve owned and or currently own. If those leases had permanent dependable water, there would a much larger market viability.

 

[S.Clancy]

I’ve had BLM, NF and State leases in two different states on ranches I’ve owned and or currently own. If those leases had permanent dependable water, there would a much larger market viability.

Did you tell the local BLM office, as the lease holder and (presumably) grazer that you needed more dependable water?

 

[Idaboy]

States don’t own our wildlife. Countries don’t own the wildlife either. Pelagic fish species migrate around the world. Waterfowl hatched in the tundra end up on private property in Texas. Waterfowl hatched in Siberia, end migrate to Southern California and other SW states. Some Sand hill cranes winter in New Mexico. Elk, etc migrate to the US from Canada. Wildlife has no borders.

Typically states that have over 80% private lands don’t have landowners tags. Those states pay the landowner for public hunting access. Access contracts typically include habitat improvement requirements and easements for wildlife management. Western states need to get a clue. Land owner tags for sale leads to hunting and fishing privatization. The highest bidders get the opportunities to hunt private lands as well as public lands. What eventually happens is very few tags allocated to the public draw for residents and non-residents alike. The draw odds become dismal. Landowner tags are bad mojo for the economy, reduce hunting and fishing opportunity. Wildlife management funding is diverted. Trespass fees roll into private land tags.

The states with the worst privatization also have the worst wildlife management as well as the worst hunting, fishing opportunities. Some of the worst states for privatization are New Mexico and Texas. The best Western state for hunting and fishing opportunity as well as wildlife management is South Dakota. You can’t do any finger pointing here because South Dakota and Texas are Red while New Mexico is Blue.

Robertson-Pittman, Dingell, Great American Outdoors Act, funds wildlife management. There are other Congressional mandates as well.

Great points, and I don't personally believe the states "own the wildlife" (thank you for correcting me) was just referencing the guys post, and I was more referring they do mostly "own" or manage the seasons, harvests etc ( and this is the rationale it seems WY has used of requiring a guide/registered WY resident to hunt in federal wilderness (would love to see that challenged in court, or changed). I don't know the stats on states with >80% private. Totally agree that landowner tags are bad.

The access yes program in Idaho is small, but have hunted big game on some with success.

The public access for hunting and fishing in Idaho does provide a lot of opportunities.

Keep it public

 

[Gila]

Back in the day before the internet and cell phones, non-residents didn’t want to hunt wilderness without a guide. But now with the technology a non-res DIY hunt is feasible. SAR insurance for the Garmin InReach is cheap. I see non-residents from bordering states hunt the Gila Wilderness with their horses. Using a guide-outfitter should be a personal choice. New Mexico is the only state that actually allocates public land tags to outfitters. 10% of the public draw. But I think Wyoming has it right with a 90% 10% split with no outfitter allocations.