Trump Admin will ask Congress to eliminate USGS Biological Resources Division

[2531usmc]

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.

the debt is so monstrous, that raising taxes on the billionaires is like spitting into a hurricane

 

[CJ19]

Kinda sounds like this is why resident hunters are being squeezed out of hunting opportunities in their home states,,,,

this debate is one of the hardest in western hunting. easy to see why both sides feel the way they do imo. I think there is a real danger of apathy towards the resource when people dont have a stake in it tho.

 

[2buffalo]

Kinda sounds like this is why resident hunters are being squeezed out of hunting opportunities in their home states,,,,

Not sure what you're saying.

 

[cubdriver84d]

BRD is what the biology arm of USGS was called 15 years ago. It's now the ecosystems mission area, which includes things like the bird banding lab that manages all of the waterfowl banding permits and data across the country, the national wildlife health center that does a bunch of work on CWD and avian flu, ungulate migration stuff, piles of salmon and other fish work, the fish and wildlife cooperative research units, etc.

State agencies might be able to absorb some of the work, but what about, for example, trying to map and understand migrations that span multiple states (or even countries), how a wildlife disease spreads across the continent, or how to manage waterfowl harvest as birds migrate through multiple states and countries?

Some legislation, such as the American Conservation Enhancement Act (from the last Trump administration and reauthorized last year), actually identify USGS as being responsible for coordinating science and research across state and federal agencies.

For you bean counters, check out USGS's green book from last year: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/fy2024-usgs-greenbook.pdf-508.pdf. Whopping $400m to ecosystems. That's like $2 per taxpayer and not even a rounding error compared to $6-7t total fed spending.

 

[RuggedYogi]

Programs like this are a drop in the bucket when it comes to the federal budget. They also provide a valuable service that directly benefits the hunting and non-hunting public. Our public lands are a national treasure and are worth the money, in my opinion.

There is plenty of waste and inefficiency in the government, why not go after the things that account for a substantial amount of federal spending and leave these programs alone?

 

[2buffalo]

BRD is what the biology arm of USGS was called 15 years ago. It's now the ecosystems mission area, which includes things like the bird banding lab that manages all of the waterfowl banding permits and data across the country, the national wildlife health center that does a bunch of work on CWD and avian flu, ungulate migration stuff, piles of salmon and other fish work, the fish and wildlife cooperative research units, etc.

State agencies might be able to absorb some of the work, but what about, for example, trying to map and understand migrations that span multiple states (or even countries), how a wildlife disease spreads across the continent, or how to manage waterfowl harvest as birds migrate through multiple states and countries?

Some legislation, such as the American Conservation Enhancement Act (from the last Trump administration and reauthorized last year), actually identify USGS as being responsible for coordinating science and research across state and federal agencies.

For you bean counters, check out USGS's green book from last year: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/fy2024-usgs-greenbook.pdf-508.pdf. Whopping $400m to ecosystems. That's like $2 per taxpayer and not even a rounding error compared to $6-7t total fed spending.

There are 153 million "taxpayers" in the US. That is the number of people who filed a tax return not the number of people who actually paid taxes or the number of people who get more money back in federal programs than they paid in taxes. The math isn't that easy.

 

[cubdriver84d]

There are 153 million "taxpayers" in the US. That is the number of people who filed a tax return not the number of people who actually paid taxes or the number of people who get more money back in federal programs than they paid in taxes. The math isn't that easy.

Fair point. Let’s call it like a $1.20 per citizen then.

 

[2buffalo]

Fair point. Let’s call it like a $1.20 per citizen then.

You're going the wrong way. Need to work on your math skills.

 

[RWT]

Look at Texas as a working example. 98% privately owned. You have to pay to play. I much prefer paying for a landowner access than the silly ass lottery of the western states. Based on my odds and paying for preferences points is a waste of time. Make the landowner tag the same minimum price as what the points cost. If you claim you must hunt for subsistence then move to Alaska. One elk will feed a family of four for a year. I don’t need any additional assistance from the Fed. Let the states handle their own issues.

Please provide evidence of what the BRD delivered over their existence. Actual actionable documents that state how many years it would take a bear population to grow to the point it should meet minimum delisting requirements . Making a recommendation and not having the power to enforce it makes them a non factor. Based on the above example it took them 20 years to “study” the situation and then state the obvious. We have enough technology to do animal counts in a 4 year period and determine a path forward. BRD needs to become efficient and effective if it wants to exist.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I don’t support many of the cuts to agencies like these that affect wildlife, conservation, and public lands. I will likely contact my reps and state such. Plenty of inefficiencies across the fed govt in the bloated social welfare apparatus that should receive scrutiny first. I also believe the federal debt is a glaring problem that has us careening towards a cliff. Will likely require program cuts along with tax increases somewhere to avoid financial disaster. In a clear case of blatant hypocrisy, I see western hunters and states extort non-residents with obscene tag prices and continuing cuts for non-resident tag allocations down to 10% or less because “the wildlife belongs to us”. Then these same folks demand support from the federal government and taxpayers across the country. I thought the wildlife belonged to your state residents and no one else?

 

[cubdriver84d]

You're going the wrong way. Need to work on your math skills.

Was just trying to divvy up the $400m across 340m citizens. Good thing I’m not a bean counter I guess.

 

[CJ19]

Was just trying to divvy up the $400m across 340m citizens. Good thing I’m not a bean counter I guess.

right. i think everyone on these forums wouldnt mind what you are saying. but as people have pointed out, the problem is there are 1000s of this type of issue across many areas of life- education, aids, blah blah. most of the country does not value this cause as much as others. so its down the list for them.

 

[ianpadron]

In this thread alone there are like 10 acronym/alphabet agencies that, at some point in time, were grafted onto the bloated mess that our federal government has become.

No one, and I mean no one, outside of our very small niche user group would have the slightest clue what these organizations do, or why they exist.

Guys need to start realizing how little the average American cares about the issues affecting sportsmen.

Leaving wildlife management up to the states as intended, and getting rid of the ESA would be great first steps.

The further away your government is, the less they care about what's important to you, FYI.

 

[elkhunter505]

Forgive me if this is naive. My understanding of these things is limited. Additionally, I am trying to be more civil as it is apparent that us all screaming at each other is getting us no where so please take this as a true question.

If we are in such dire straights as some have suggested, why is the administration pushing for a tax plan that will add 4.5 trillion dollars to the debt? Additionally, why can’t we both cut spending and tax billionaires at the same time? Seems like if we were in as dire straights as everyone is suggesting that it would be in all of our interests to suck up a bit more in taxes if it could get us out of the economic hole we are in? It seems as though we have had 50 years of trickle down economics that doesn’t seem to be working. Wages have not kept pace with inflation while corporate profits have continued skyrocketing? I just legitimately don’t understand these things because everything being done appears to be at odds? Cut spending but increase the deficit? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[elkhunter505]

In this thread alone there are like 10 acronym/alphabet agencies that, at some point in time, were grafted onto the bloated mess that our federal government has become.

No one, and I mean no one, outside of our very small niche user group would have the slightest clue what these organizations do, or why they exist.

Guys need to start realizing how little the average American cares about the issues affecting sportsmen.

Leaving wildlife management up to the states as intended, and getting rid of the ESA would be great first steps.

The further away your government is, the less they care about what's important to you, FYI.

I’d beg to differ because there are tons and tons of non hunters who support the USGS mission along with that of the Grizzly team. Similarly, I think reform for the ESA is needed because what we are seeing is an over correction because of the litigation. If the ESA did truly function as it was supposed to without the lawsuit BS, there would not be anywhere near as much controversy around it. I would not support removing it because wildlife populations cross state jurisdiction. If the animal only occurred in one state, then maybe, but if not, it should be a national problem.

 

[RWT]

I’d beg to differ because there are tons and tons of non hunters who support the USGS mission along with that of the Grizzly team. Similarly, I think reform for the ESA is needed because what we are seeing is an over correction because of the litigation. If the ESA did truly function as it was supposed to without the lawsuit BS, there would not be anywhere near as much controversy around it. I would not support removing it because wildlife populations cross state jurisdiction. If the animal only occurred in one state, then maybe, but if not, it should be a national problem.

I believe the intent of many of the views is the Fed has to much overreach in these issue. The Fed cannot operate their own “business” so we should do our best to limit their influence on the business we as hunters care about.

 

[ianpadron]

Forgive me if this is naive. My understanding of these things is limited. Additionally, I am trying to be more civil as it is apparent that us all screaming at each other is getting us no where so please take this as a true question.

If we are in such dire straights as some have suggested, why is the administration pushing for a tax plan that will add 4.5 trillion dollars to the debt? Additionally, why can’t we both cut spending and tax billionaires at the same time? Seems like if we were in as dire straights as everyone is suggesting that it would be in all of our interests to suck up a bit more in taxes if it could get us out of the economic hole we are in? It seems as though we have had 50 years of trickle down economics that doesn’t seem to be working. Wages have not kept pace with inflation while corporate profits have continued skyrocketing? I just legitimately don’t understand these things because everything being done appears to be at odds? Cut spending but increase the deficit? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

If you're looking to understand revenue creation and government spending, a hunting forum isn't the place to accomplish that. You're going to get opinions. You're going to get zero consideration of nuance.

If a $36T debt, $2T deficit, and runaway inflation aren't "dire" issues worthy of drastic measures, not sure what data would convince you otherwise.

Your "let's just tax the billionaires" line illustrates you have an "eat the rich" bias, like many other alarmists in society today.

If you took 5 minutes to Google who pays the taxes in this country, you'd realize that the top 1% pay 46% of our taxes. I'll let you lookup how much the companies that the top 5% of earners own pay in payroll tax, property taxes, sales taxes, etc... you can report back with your findings.

If you think that's "fair" or that they should pay more, there's a fundamental disconnect in the way you think, with the way many other Americans think.

We aren't taxing our way out of this mess, nor have we solved any of our nations issues through taxation. Surprised that's not glaringly obvious to every tax payer in the USA at this point.

Take a trip to the Midwest, East Coast, or South...ask strangers how much they're willing to pay for the alphabet soup agencies we value out West...it'll start making sense quickly.

 

[ianpadron]

I believe the intent of many of the views is the Fed has to much overreach in these issue. The Fed cannot operate their own “business” so we should do our best to limit their influence on the business we as hunters care about.

Bingo

 

[elkhunter505]

I believe the intent of many of the views is the Fed has to much overreach in these issue. The Fed cannot operate their own “business” so we should do our best to limit their influence on the business we as hunters care about.

I can understand that sentiment. But the fed doesn’t just include these programs. These specific programs benefit states and the people that spend their time using this resource vastly. There’s a ton of different places where the money obviously doesn’t go the right way, Pentagon, DOD, NGOs that receive government contracts, etc. First hand, I know how my unit and the NM unit pinches their pennies to get the most out of their money. In contrast, the DOD and Pentagon continue failing audits and being unable to account for their money but they’re the golden goose. I hate that I somewhat agree with Elon, but NGOs and those contracts are a huge issue.

 

[elkhunter505]

If you're looking to understand revenue creation and government spending, a hunting forum isn't the place to accomplish that. You're going to get opinions. You're going to get zero consideration of nuance.

If a $36T debt, $2T deficit, and runaway inflation aren't "dire" issues worthy of drastic measures, not sure what data would convince you otherwise.

Your "let's just tax the billionaires" line illustrates you have an "eat the rich" bias, like many other alarmists in society today.

If you took 5 minutes to Google who pays the taxes in this country, you'd realize that the top 1% pay 46% of our taxes. I'll let you lookup how much the companies that the top 5% of earners own pay in payroll tax, property taxes, sales taxes, etc... you can report back with your findings.

If you think that's "fair" or that they should pay more, there's a fundamental disconnect in the way you think, with the way many other Americans think.

We aren't taxing our way out of this mess, nor have we solved any of our nations issues through taxation. Surprised that's not glaringly obvious to every tax payer in the USA at this point.

Take a trip to the Midwest, East Coast, or South...ask strangers how much they're willing to pay for the alphabet soup agencies we value out West...it'll start making sense quickly.

Well in contrast, if the system of lowering taxes for the past 50 years has not worked, then why don’t we try another way? The graphs that are shown on .gov about the debt to income ratio clearly show that the debt to income ratio was declining until 1981 which is incidentally when the first Reagan tax cuts occurred. I have no interest in the Eat the Rich movement. It just doesn’t make sense to me why if we are in the dire situation that we wouldn’t use every tool available to us. That means cutting spending and increasing taxes.

I totally understand your sentiment about the East, Midwest, and South. I understand how they think from firsthand experience. If I didn’t have public land, or had minimal levels of public land that were overrun by people, I wouldn’t support it either.

So to be devils advocate, if these programs were to be cut, would people here support putting that money into the states to make up for what we are losing if they are to be removed? I truly believe that these types of programs have a massive impact on ungulate conservation. I think we all (on this forum) can agree that is something we want to continue funding, no?