Trump Admin will ask Congress to eliminate USGS Biological Resources Division

E

elkhunter505

WKR
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
791
Hey everyone,

Hope everyone is having a good Easter. Just wanted to put this up before it passed my mind. Currently, the budget proposal that the administration is going to put forward will eliminate the USGS Biological Resources Division.

So would this impact the wildlife you like to chase? In particular, the cooperative fish and wildlife research units and the northern Rocky Mountain science center are housed within the BRD. The Coop units provide valuable expertise and integrate federal scientists within universities to help graduate students and state agencies with projects that impact wildlife. In some states, NM for example, most research on ungulates is funneled through the coop units. Many of these units have websites that show what they are currently working on so you can go get an idea of what research is being done by your state’s unit. Some examples include, the Elk/Mexican Gray wolf project in NM, migration work in WY and across the west, and statewide bighorn sheep and mountain goat research in Montana. To be transparent, I am currently advised by a member of the cooperative research unit system, so I do have a personal stake in this. These units bring in $3 of funding for every $1 they are appropriated.

Similarly, the northern Rocky Mountain science center helps with many different projects involving ungulates across the western United States. I am not fully informed on what the NOROCK is currently involved in or I would provide examples of that as well.

In summary, I feel as those these functions that the BRD provide are extremely beneficial to the sportsman community. The research being done within the USGS is used consistently to inform management actions across the western that benefit your ungulate populations. Without the USGS, there would not have been a cohesive effort to map ungulate migrations across the west like there has been. Please reach out to your representatives and tell them you oppose dismantling the BRD. Thank you for reading all the way through and if there are any questions that I can answer, I would be happy to do so.
 
From a Newberg post

End of Grizzly Delisting?

I had heard rumors that things at the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) were starting to unravel with the impacts of the "Government Efficiency" mandates taking hold at every level of Federal agencies. I first was introduced to the work of the IGBST as one of five Montanans Governor...
www.hunttalk.com www.hunttalk.com

"I had heard rumors that things at the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) were starting to unravel with the impacts of the "Government Efficiency" mandates taking hold at every level of Federal agencies.

I first was introduced to the work of the IGBST as one of five Montanans Governor Racicot placed on the Governor's Grizzly Bear Roundtable. That was back in 1998. Five people from each state, MT, ID, WY worked with USFWS and IGBST to craft the Conservation Strategy for eventual delisting of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem subpopulation of grizzly bears.

The Roundtable met quarterly for three years, with the eventual product being the current Management Plan for GYE grizzlies. Following that, my friend Arnie Dood, who was the MT endangered species coordinator at FWP, roped me into serving on Montana's committee for our grizzly bear management plan.

It was pretty exciting to see the USFWS petition the GYE grizzlies for delisting, twice. It was equally disappointing to see a judge rescind that delisting ruling, both times. I have always held hope that eventually we would get there. The science on these bears that is contained among the scientists of the IGBST is the best in the world. They are the smartest grizzly bear people I know.

When that IGBST group gave their case of how the bears are recovered and they worked to support the delisting effort, I was stunned that a judge would overrule their science in favor of supposed legal technicalities or "hired scientists" of the litigators. Yet, such is how messed up our legal process is for the ESA, a much bigger symptom of problems in well-intended legislation that needs to be addressed.

Roll that forward to this week. Now, coming out of the Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center here in Bozeman, the place that houses the IGBST and many other important Federal science projects, is the news that the IGBST has been impacted due to "DOGE" efforts. That is going to remove any possibility of grizzly bear delisting.

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.

Like many others, the number of hours/days I've spent working on grizzly bears/grizzly bear management/grizzly bear ESA issues, is more than I want to think about. All of that was out of my interest in this amazing animal and seeing it removed from the ESA, whether we had hunting seasons or not. Seeing this news, it seems that the effort of so many, will yield no results. The likelihood of grizzly delisting is close to zero without the IGBST and the talent within that group.

The IGBST is a handful of scientist who have made their life's work around the study of grizzlies. With that talent/knowledge pool being such a small group of people with collective centuries of studying these bears, it's not like you can post a job opening and fill that talent loss in a month or two. The IGBST has been our biggest advocate towards the effort of getting these bears delisted.

Here is a link to a story that gives a bit more commentary to the issue. I'm not a fan of the header, as it seems that header was chosen merely for the effect of putting Trump and Musk in the headlines - https://wyofile.com/trump-and-musks...ng-historic-yellowstone-grizzly-science-team/

To me, this topic could easily stand on its own without wrapping it in a lens of politics. DOGE has consequences. Using a hatchet when a scalpel would be far more efficient and effective, results in some serious damage. If this unwinding of the IGBST happens, the future possibility of delisting grizzly bears in the Lower 48 disappears with it. That would suck, not just for the bears, but for us.

I'll be contacting my delegation to see if it is possible to keep this Team together."
 
wapitibob said:
From a Newberg post

End of Grizzly Delisting?

I had heard rumors that things at the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) were starting to unravel with the impacts of the "Government Efficiency" mandates taking hold at every level of Federal agencies. I first was introduced to the work of the IGBST as one of five Montanans Governor...
www.hunttalk.com www.hunttalk.com

"I had heard rumors that things at the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) were starting to unravel with the impacts of the "Government Efficiency" mandates taking hold at every level of Federal agencies.

I first was introduced to the work of the IGBST as one of five Montanans Governor Racicot placed on the Governor's Grizzly Bear Roundtable. That was back in 1998. Five people from each state, MT, ID, WY worked with USFWS and IGBST to craft the Conservation Strategy for eventual delisting of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem subpopulation of grizzly bears.

The Roundtable met quarterly for three years, with the eventual product being the current Management Plan for GYE grizzlies. Following that, my friend Arnie Dood, who was the MT endangered species coordinator at FWP, roped me into serving on Montana's committee for our grizzly bear management plan.

It was pretty exciting to see the USFWS petition the GYE grizzlies for delisting, twice. It was equally disappointing to see a judge rescind that delisting ruling, both times. I have always held hope that eventually we would get there. The science on these bears that is contained among the scientists of the IGBST is the best in the world. They are the smartest grizzly bear people I know.

When that IGBST group gave their case of how the bears are recovered and they worked to support the delisting effort, I was stunned that a judge would overrule their science in favor of supposed legal technicalities or "hired scientists" of the litigators. Yet, such is how messed up our legal process is for the ESA, a much bigger symptom of problems in well-intended legislation that needs to be addressed.

Roll that forward to this week. Now, coming out of the Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center here in Bozeman, the place that houses the IGBST and many other important Federal science projects, is the news that the IGBST has been impacted due to "DOGE" efforts. That is going to remove any possibility of grizzly bear delisting.

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.

Like many others, the number of hours/days I've spent working on grizzly bears/grizzly bear management/grizzly bear ESA issues, is more than I want to think about. All of that was out of my interest in this amazing animal and seeing it removed from the ESA, whether we had hunting seasons or not. Seeing this news, it seems that the effort of so many, will yield no results. The likelihood of grizzly delisting is close to zero without the IGBST and the talent within that group.

The IGBST is a handful of scientist who have made their life's work around the study of grizzlies. With that talent/knowledge pool being such a small group of people with collective centuries of studying these bears, it's not like you can post a job opening and fill that talent loss in a month or two. The IGBST has been our biggest advocate towards the effort of getting these bears delisted.

Here is a link to a story that gives a bit more commentary to the issue. I'm not a fan of the header, as it seems that header was chosen merely for the effect of putting Trump and Musk in the headlines - https://wyofile.com/trump-and-musks...ng-historic-yellowstone-grizzly-science-team/

To me, this topic could easily stand on its own without wrapping it in a lens of politics. DOGE has consequences. Using a hatchet when a scalpel would be far more efficient and effective, results in some serious damage. If this unwinding of the IGBST happens, the future possibility of delisting grizzly bears in the Lower 48 disappears with it. That would suck, not just for the bears, but for us.

I'll be contacting my delegation to see if it is possible to keep this Team together."
Click to expand...
Yep thanks. I forgot about the IGBST. I don’t think the NCDE and the GYE should be under the ESA anymore but that doesn’t mean we should not continue researching and managing grizzlies. I know one of those folks tangentially as he got his PhD where I got my MS. Good dude who really cares about the work and the public.
 
pirogue said:
I’m sure the recent, exorbitantly, increased state revenue from license and tag increases will take over funding for the respective states.
Click to expand...
Big maybe in my mind. However, the states that didn’t see those increases will be left scrambling in my opinion. The system has been working and has bipartisan support. While it would be nice to know the states have a backup plan, they likely do not have the funds or capacity to hire those individuals on and prevent hiccups. If they are removed, there is going to be considerable disruption in the projects themselves. Particularly in projects where the Coop staff are the only advisor. I have a coadvisor from the state agency who can help keep things from being disrupted, but he cannot provide the skill set that my primary advisor brings to the table. Additionally, I do not feel that the other professors at my university would be able to fill that gap either. Unfortunately, having a coadvisor that can help streamline changes will not be the case for everyone and there will be projects that see disruptions.
 
wapitibob said:
From a Newberg post

End of Grizzly Delisting?

I had heard rumors that things at the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) were starting to unravel with the impacts of the "Government Efficiency" mandates taking hold at every level of Federal agencies. I first was introduced to the work of the IGBST as one of five Montanans Governor...
www.hunttalk.com www.hunttalk.com

"I had heard rumors that things at the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) were starting to unravel with the impacts of the "Government Efficiency" mandates taking hold at every level of Federal agencies.

I first was introduced to the work of the IGBST as one of five Montanans Governor Racicot placed on the Governor's Grizzly Bear Roundtable. That was back in 1998. Five people from each state, MT, ID, WY worked with USFWS and IGBST to craft the Conservation Strategy for eventual delisting of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem subpopulation of grizzly bears.

The Roundtable met quarterly for three years, with the eventual product being the current Management Plan for GYE grizzlies. Following that, my friend Arnie Dood, who was the MT endangered species coordinator at FWP, roped me into serving on Montana's committee for our grizzly bear management plan.

It was pretty exciting to see the USFWS petition the GYE grizzlies for delisting, twice. It was equally disappointing to see a judge rescind that delisting ruling, both times. I have always held hope that eventually we would get there. The science on these bears that is contained among the scientists of the IGBST is the best in the world. They are the smartest grizzly bear people I know.

When that IGBST group gave their case of how the bears are recovered and they worked to support the delisting effort, I was stunned that a judge would overrule their science in favor of supposed legal technicalities or "hired scientists" of the litigators. Yet, such is how messed up our legal process is for the ESA, a much bigger symptom of problems in well-intended legislation that needs to be addressed.

Roll that forward to this week. Now, coming out of the Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center here in Bozeman, the place that houses the IGBST and many other important Federal science projects, is the news that the IGBST has been impacted due to "DOGE" efforts. That is going to remove any possibility of grizzly bear delisting.

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.

Like many others, the number of hours/days I've spent working on grizzly bears/grizzly bear management/grizzly bear ESA issues, is more than I want to think about. All of that was out of my interest in this amazing animal and seeing it removed from the ESA, whether we had hunting seasons or not. Seeing this news, it seems that the effort of so many, will yield no results. The likelihood of grizzly delisting is close to zero without the IGBST and the talent within that group.

The IGBST is a handful of scientist who have made their life's work around the study of grizzlies. With that talent/knowledge pool being such a small group of people with collective centuries of studying these bears, it's not like you can post a job opening and fill that talent loss in a month or two. The IGBST has been our biggest advocate towards the effort of getting these bears delisted.

Here is a link to a story that gives a bit more commentary to the issue. I'm not a fan of the header, as it seems that header was chosen merely for the effect of putting Trump and Musk in the headlines - https://wyofile.com/trump-and-musks...ng-historic-yellowstone-grizzly-science-team/

To me, this topic could easily stand on its own without wrapping it in a lens of politics. DOGE has consequences. Using a hatchet when a scalpel would be far more efficient and effective, results in some serious damage. If this unwinding of the IGBST happens, the future possibility of delisting grizzly bears in the Lower 48 disappears with it. That would suck, not just for the bears, but for us.

I'll be contacting my delegation to see if it is possible to keep this Team together."
Click to expand...


A scalpel was tried in Trump's first term when Ryan Zinke was an appointment and there were opportunities abound to work with that administration. Donald trump Jr was taking an active interest in big game hunting at that point and was actively advising the President on policy. instead of working with them which the conservation lobby had the chance to do...the conservation lobby such as the people leading Backcountry Hunters and Anglers worked desperately to remove those potential allies. Which happened. That is how we have arrived were we are. A scalpel was already in hand the conservation lobby did not want it used. So now the chainsaw is out. And I agree with Randy on this. A scalpel was a better tool. But that ship sailed and I will never forgive the conservation industry and lobby for their disregard for sportsman and hunters when they chose their personal politics, special interests, and own piggy banks instead.
 
2buffalo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Could you point me to an example of how it doesn’t work very well? There’s a ton of examples of State agencies saying how integral the Coop Units are to their ability to do research. Additionally, individuals who aren’t hunters but like to wildlife watch or do other things are inherently represented by and help fund the USGS. They do not contribute to the state agency but they do to USGS.
 
elkhunter505 said:
Could you point me to an example of how it doesn’t work very well? There’s a ton of examples of State agencies saying how integral the Coop Units are to their ability to do research. Additionally, individuals who aren’t hunters but like to wildlife watch or do other things are inherently represented by and help fund the USGS. They do not contribute to the state agency but they do to USGS.
Click to expand...
Sure. If I am paying the bill I want equal access to hunting the animals. If I am not paying the bill and state residents are paying the bill then I have no right to equal access.

U.S. Debt Clock

Track America's National Debt in Real-Time With Accurate Live Data
www.us-debt-clock.com
 
2buffalo said:
Sure. If I am paying the bill I want equal access to hunting the animals. If I am not paying the bill and state residents are paying the bill then I have no right to equal access.

U.S. Debt Clock

Track America's National Debt in Real-Time With Accurate Live Data
www.us-debt-clock.com
Click to expand...
This is a concept that continues to elude members of the western hunting public. There was just a thread flaming a guy for saying just this.
 
2buffalo said:
Sure. If I am paying the bill I want equal access to hunting the animals. If I am not paying the bill and state residents are paying the bill then I have no right to equal access.

U.S. Debt Clock

Track America's National Debt in Real-Time With Accurate Live Data
www.us-debt-clock.com
Click to expand...
I understand your sentiment regarding that but I will agree to disagree. I don’t think that is a sound argument for removing research surrounding these things. Specifically the Coops in this case as the funding for the research projects comes from the state agencies or nonprofits themselves. The funding for the scientist’s salaries comes from the federal government. The funding for offices, overhead, etc. comes from the university where they are housed.

This is a very raw number but taking the total budget for the BRD and dividing it by the total number of taxpayers in 2022, it costs each tax payer an average of $11 to fund the entire BRD. Not sure how that breaks out to the coop units. Is that not worth your money to help your state agency by providing them researchers with viable skillsets? If it is and you’d like to put that $11 to your state agency to hire those people instead, I understand, but if you feel $11 isn’t worth the benefit to your state agency, I agree to disagree.
 
Well, here is where the rubber meets the road. Cuts to the federal deficit must be made ASAP and DOGE is helping get that done...but even that isn't nearly enough. Cuts in and elimination efforts of every single federal agency and federal cost line item must be made, it's as simple as that. The alternative, is the country defaults on its debt at some point in the next 4-5 years....then the bottom drops out of everything based on the "dollar". Nobody will bail us out, nobody to buy further debt....the USA is bankrupt and a severe depression begins and lasts much longer than the last one. Very few will be working and most will lose everything they own. You won't have to worry about ungulate migrations, grizzly bear population, deer population or any other game population....because people everywhere will be killing every animal in sight just to feed their families. There will be no govt bailouts for anyone when the country is broke. Go speak to the few left that lived thru the 30's. There is no more time left to kick the can down the road.....the rubber has met the road. Abolish every agency that does not show that it can support itself. If you think the Californians are invading your state now, just wait.
 
elkhunter505 said:
I understand your sentiment regarding that but I will agree to disagree. I don’t think that is a sound argument for removing research surrounding these things. Specifically the Coops in this case as the funding for the research projects comes from the state agencies or nonprofits themselves. The funding for the scientists comes from the federal government.

This is a very raw number but taking the total budget for the BRD and dividing it by the total number of taxpayers in 2022, it costs each tax payer an average of $11 to fund the entire BRD. Not sure how that breaks out to the coop units. Is that not worth your money to help your state agency by providing them researchers with viable skillsets? If it is and you’d like to put that $11 to your state agency to hire those people instead, I understand, but if you feel $11 isn’t worth the benefit to your state agency, I agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
It's fine to disagree. I am not trying to get you to agree with me I am just stating another viewpoint. I pay a couple thousand dollars a year between tags, applications, and non resident licenses a year. I choose to do that. That is the contribution I make to States for their "game management". I have no interest in being forced to pay through federal taxes without equal access to the tags.
 
everybody thinks their program and department is worthwhile..otherwise it wouldn't exist. That IS the problem. Everyone has something they want funded by others. We need smaller govt. and a smaller govt. budget and the cutting has to start somewhere and the time is right now. This isn't political at all...it's about a govt deficit that is ready to explode the entire country and sacrifices need to be made and it just so happens your pet projects are on the chopping block. Let the state and local taxpayers pay if they want it, or seek money from the elk and sheep and mule deer foundations that have tons of cash.
 
pacoalcracker said:
everybody thinks their program and department is worthwhile..otherwise it wouldn't exist. That IS the problem. Everyone has something they want funded by others. We need smaller govt. and a smaller govt. budget and the cutting has to start somewhere and the time is right now. This isn't political at all...it's about a govt deficit that is ready to explode the entire country and sacrifices need to be made and it just so happens your pet projects are on the chopping block. Let the state and local taxpayers pay if they want it, or seek money from the elk and sheep and mule deer foundations that have tons of cash.
Click to expand...
I’m in the tax billionaires crowd personally. I understand not everyone agrees with that but programs that we all care about get cut when we could tax billionaires while cutting taxes for people like all of us that don’t make that money. A billion dollars is an absolutely insane amount of money. Also if you look at the way the pattern in the debt to income ratio, it’s clear that the debt to income ratio was declining all the way until the first Reagan tax cuts. I was not alive when those things occurred so I have no way to argue it, but looking at the data from .gov shows the debt to income ratio was declining all the way until 1980. It’s very odd to look at the data and see the pattern and see people still arguing for tax cuts for billionaires, but I wasn’t alive so I don’t understand the context.
 
2buffalo said:
It's fine to disagree. I am not trying to get you to agree with me I am just stating another viewpoint. I pay a couple thousand dollars a year between tags, applications, and non resident licenses a year. I choose to do that. That is the contribution I make to States for their "game management". I have no interest in being forced to pay through federal taxes without equal access to the tags.
Click to expand...
Kinda sounds like this is why resident hunters are being squeezed out of hunting opportunities in their home states,,,,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swamp Fox
Non- and anti-hunters on game commissions
2 3
Replies
46
Views
4K
Macintosh
M
cnelk
Idaho's Nez Perce Tribe will likely provide Colorado with wolves
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
THallock
THallock
D
Proposed Utah Elk Season Changes
Replies
16
Views
3K
Sled
Sled
Howl For Wildlife
What Does Howl For Wildlife do?
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
wilkup
W
robby denning
Mule Deer Foundation at Work--please support them.
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
Eastonsgrandpa
E

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top