All federal waterfowl and wetlands research proposed to be eliminated from USGS
- Thread starter Brad Bortner
- Start date
Just to be sure.... we are getting the real clinton john? Not upset wifey right?
I'm philosophically in the camp that good data is important and valuable, and that the program should not be scrapped without a plan. Having said that, I recognize that our nation simply does not have the funds to do everything we think is important or valuable. At the federal level, we're spending almost 70% more than we take in. That is simply unsustainable, and a lot of things that are valuable and important are going to have to be cut. Personally, I dont trust any of the nincompoops in DC to make great choices (they haven't for the last 30 years), but it needs to happen IMO.
What does burn me a bit about wildlife programs being cut is that a lot of it is funded voluntarily through purchase of licenses, firearms, and ammunition. I think there is a real case to be made with our congressmen from this perspective. But first long term sustainability, I suspect the model for collecting data is going to need to shift from manpower-intensive to tech-intensive. I'd think we're bound to be approaching a point where satellite imagery and computing capabilities of AI can do as accurate as job at a far lower cost (with, perhaps, some small validation studies to help validate and/or modify modeling algorithms). If the money were being redirected to universities to develop and prove such capability, I could get on board.
What does burn me a bit about wildlife programs being cut is that a lot of it is funded voluntarily through purchase of licenses, firearms, and ammunition. I think there is a real case to be made with our congressmen from this perspective. But first long term sustainability, I suspect the model for collecting data is going to need to shift from manpower-intensive to tech-intensive. I'd think we're bound to be approaching a point where satellite imagery and computing capabilities of AI can do as accurate as job at a far lower cost (with, perhaps, some small validation studies to help validate and/or modify modeling algorithms). If the money were being redirected to universities to develop and prove such capability, I could get on board.
I don’t disagree that we need to get an handle on our budget. But we simply can’t cut spending while lowering taxes and get ourselves out of this fiscal mess. It took us 30 years to get into this and it’s not going to get solved without leadership and a real plan.
Unpleasant truth is our marginal tax rates are lowest in over 100 years and that’s not sustainable either.
Unpleasant truth is our marginal tax rates are lowest in over 100 years and that’s not sustainable either.
Agree with the sentiment, but there are so many hidden taxes and fees that I disagree that it is a revenue problem. Our "leaders" have mastered the art of telling us they aren't raising taxes while maintaining or cutting income tax rates, while sticking it to us everywhere else (including income taxes through things like AMT). Federal receipts are 2.5 times what they were in 2010 - that's a heck of an increase, over 3 times the growth in GDP.
Our federal government is spending about 27 cents of every dollar generated in this country (spending/gdp). And interest rates are rising.
Having said all that, I suspect we will, indeed, need to pay more in taxes to get our fiscal house in order - but I'm loathe to advocate for that until our leaders show some willingness to meaningfully cust spending.
Sorry for the rant, back to duck boats.
Is cust like an extreme version of cut??? Because if it is, i completely agree with you and everything said. Hard to cut spending when our tax dollars are being spent on judges bringing criminals back in the country and allowing men in women sports... but i digress. Back to losing out on duck bands and migration research
jode hillman
Well-known member
So let me reiterate my question. Answering it doesn't cause you to divulge any of your sources.
Manipulating data to what end? What's the goal? Shorter seasons? Reduce bag limits?
Most waterfowl biologist and in those in management are generally Hunter's themselves.
Nearly All I have known, would push for liberal seasons and max bag limits when possible. The only times they restrict is when it's absolutely necessary.
It's not like people get into Waterfowl management for the glory, fame or money! It's because they care about the resource.
Last edited:
Vince Pagliaroli
Well-known member
From what reading I have done ALL bird populations in North America are in decline. Some in very steep decline. We know this cuz of STUDIES done by the Feds, States, Universities, Colleges, private and national organizations, etc. To take ONE or more of these factors out of information gathered and we get into the "Who Gives a Damn" slippery slope that we most certainly cannot afford. How and why we got to this point is what it is, history. How we go forward in a Positive unified manner concerning this subject IS very important.
my 2 cents
my 2 cents
Clinton John
Active member
I can only speculate to myself why it's being done and by who.
I can't say any more then that, other then to say. That they have infact been caught cooking the bird numbers in LA. Like all things in LA, it comes down to who is putting money in who's pocket and who needs dirt too get favors.
You can do some Google fuu and see who just got brought up on federal fraud charges from the ldwf.
Jeff Reardon
Well-known member
Are you talking about this? Why is it a big secret if it's in the newspaper? More importantly, how does an appointed politician charged with taking bribes to award state contracts undercut the value and integrity of professional federal scientists? Or is there some other story about "cooking the bird numbers" that I didn't find? If so, please share. If this is being reported there is no confidentiality to maintain. https://www.wdsu.com/article/louisiana-wildlife-fisheries-kickback-scheme/64851007
What do you do for work Clinton?
Just so people are clear, this is the USGS BR division, not USFWS that people are more familiar with as far as migratory bird management.
Its how I understand it as well. Directly from the article.....
"The USGS Ecosystems Mission Area is responsible for many of the programs that serve millions of birders, hunters, anglers, gardeners, biologists, ecologists, and wildlife enthusiasts around the country – and, importantly, the wildlife we treasure," NWF said in a statement. "Without it, we will lose the backbone of environmental and ecological monitoring in the United States."
Facilities and programs under the EMA umbrella include the U.S. Geological Survey’s Eastern Ecological Science Center (formerly called the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center) in Laurel, Maryland, home to the USGS Bird Banding Lab and the USGS Great Lakes Science Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, center for fish research on Lake Michigan, among many other disciplines."
@tod osier correct us if we are wrong?
My point was that it we are talking the USGS, not the USFWS that most are more familiar with.
It can get confusing. It all falls under the Dept. of the Interior (DoI)
So
As Tod pointed out, the US Geological Survey (USGS) is part of the Department of the Interior (DOI). During the Clinton administration, all biological research activities were consolidated for all DOI agencies, including Us Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, etc into the USGS. At the time, the Administration thought that having research consolidated under a non-regulatory agency would demonstrate that the science work was unbiased by any regulatory agenda. Some people argued that this should include all monitoring programs like the waterfowl breeding population survey and harvest surveys. The states and other fought to keep most of the migratory bird management function in USFWS because they feared that isolating science from management would some day lead to this exact proposal.
The Bird Banding Lab stores all the data on all previously banded birds and because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act requires all activities to capture, mark or kill migratory birds to be permitted, the Banding Lab issues banding permits and regulates all aspects of banding. Only BBL authorized banders can capture and mark migratory birds. They process all records of all banding and all recoveries. These data are directly used to help set hunting regulations and monitor populations.
Banding data is used to not only to understand where birds migrate to and from, but also to monitor harvest rates and survival rates and estimate population sizes. In order to get the most data from banding, there needs to be consistent banding done annually. There also needs to proper long-term storage of the data. For example, if you wanted to examine were harvest rates for mallards from South Carolina higher in the 1960s than in the 2010s, you would need to be able to pull the data and be able to separate out the groups of birds that you want to compare.
As for the other aspects of USGS Biological Research, I was pointing out the long and rich history of waterfowl science that has been done at Northern Prairie Research Center, Patuxent Research Center, the Cooperative Wildlife Research Units at 44 Universities, the National Wildlife Health Lab, and other centers. These Centers house some of the top waterfowl researchers and ecologists in the world. The Coop Unit program produces first class research and our future waterfowl scientists and managers. Many of these scientists and researchers participate in flyway meetings, conduct analyses, educate biologists, managers and administrators. In no way am I suggesting that other universities and professors are not capable but their focus is often driven by producing publications, seeking tenure, keeping grants coming into their labs and educating students. Its the nature of the academic institutions.
No one wants to see budgets run out of control, or waste, fraud or abuse of tax dollars. The waterfowl programs in USGS and USFWS are not in the billions of dollars, but in the millions. They are not funded through duck stamps or license sales. Funds come from Congressional appropriations. I was suggesting that decisions be made in a strategic informed manner recognizing priorities. I thought that members here would see perpetuation of the waterfowl management program across the US as a priority and would be interested in this topic. Congress listens to constituents and makes decisions based on what they hear, so if so inclined, members here
Back to watching my hay grow.
try to post and then disappear for several days without responding. I'll try to hit a few of the high points. My post was not meant to be a political statement in any way except to inform and educate the members here that they might want to speak up about a proposal that could dramatically affect waterfowl hunting and understanding waterfowl ecology. But this proposal will fundamentally change the way waterfowl science and management is conducted in the US.
As Tod pointed out, the US Geological Survey (USGS) is part of the Department of the Interior (DOI). During the Clinton administration, all biological research activities were consolidated for all DOI agencies, including Us Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, etc into the USGS. At the time, the Administration thought that having research consolidated under a non-regulatory agency would demonstrate that the science work was unbiased by any regulatory agenda. Some people argued that this should include all monitoring programs like the waterfowl breeding population survey and harvest surveys. The states and other fought to keep most of the migratory bird management function in USFWS because they feared that isolating science from management would some day lead to this exact proposal.
The Bird Banding Lab stores all the data on all previously banded birds and because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act requires all activities to capture, mark or kill migratory birds to be permitted, the Banding Lab issues banding permits and regulates all aspects of banding. Only BBL authorized banders can capture and mark migratory birds. They process all records of all banding and all recoveries. These data are directly used to help set hunting regulations and monitor populations.
Banding data is used to not only to understand where birds migrate to and from, but also to monitor harvest rates and survival rates and estimate population sizes. In order to get the most data from banding, there needs to be consistent banding done annually. There also needs to proper long-term storage of the data. For example, if you wanted to examine were harvest rates for mallards from South Carolina higher in the 1960s than in the 2010s, you would need to be able to pull the data and be able to separate out the groups of birds that you want to compare.
As for the other aspects of USGS Biological Research, I was pointing out the long and rich history of waterfowl science that has been done at Northern Prairie Research Center, Patuxent Research Center, the Cooperative Wildlife Research Units at 44 Universities, the National Wildlife Health Lab, and other centers. These Centers house some of the top waterfowl researchers and ecologists in the world. The Coop Unit program produces first class research and our future waterfowl scientists and managers. Many of these scientists and researchers participate in flyway meetings, conduct analyses, educate biologists, managers and administrators. In no way am I suggesting that other universities and professors are not capable but their focus is often driven by producing publications, seeking tenure, keeping grants coming into their labs and educating students. Its the nature of the academic institutions.
No one wants to see budgets run out of control, or waste, fraud or abuse of tax dollars. The waterfowl programs in USGS and USFWS are not in the billions of dollars, but in the millions. They are not funded through duck stamps or license sales. Funds come from Congressional appropriations. I was suggesting that decisions be made in a strategic informed manner recognizing priorities. I thought that members here would see perpetuation of the waterfowl management program across the US as a priority and would be interested in this topic. Congress listens to constituents and makes decisions based on what they hear, so if so inclined, members here
Back to watching my hay grow.
Thanks Brad, for getting us educated.
I've read this post numerous times now and although I've seen similar comments over the years across forums and social media I never cease to be amazed at how someone can come to these conclusions, especially given all the information available to the public.
This post got under my skin and after thinking about it I'm going to briefly respond.
"I don't see it as a issue." - If you don't see loss of these labs and resources as troubling I can only come to the conclusion you are not a conservationist and your concern for the resource is "What's in it for me." In fact, I don't think you know the first thing about these data centers and their mission nor could you construct an argument on either side of the issue or offer any insight as to how their functions could be replaced in the restructuring. So with that said your statement is probably true in that you don't see it.
"I mean look how good our federal authority's have been managing our waterfowl resources." - Given the size and scope of the responsibility and the financial resources allotted to them they have done an admirable job over the decades. Don't confuse factors outside of their control as being under their control. Your statement is a gross dismissal and lacks any substance. If you want to make an argument make one!
"Duck and geese numbers are down." - And up, and down, and up and down... Do you think this is the fix for whatever it is you see wrong? How so? Or are you after some sort of punitive satisfaction? Blaming managers for your personal dissatisfaction? Just what would it take for ol' Clinton John to give an attaboy. Good grief.
"What do we need large amounts of banding data for? We already know after , what 75 plus years of banding. Where our ducks/geese spend their winters at and where they go to raise a clutch of eggs." - New questions come up all the time that require historical data to answer. Many analyses are ongoing and build upon previous work. The questions this data can answer go much deeper than your third grade representation of what the data is good for.
"I'm sorry but the agencies involved with all this from the federal government. Haven't done a good job of it. In what 15, 20 years." - That is such a vague baseless claim. Nothing you offer is substantive.
"Time to give some else a try and see if they can do it better." Spoken as if there is another team of waterfowl biologists who have been benched and kept out of the game. The community of folks that have the required education and experience is quite small. This work will likely end up in the same hands minus experienced individuals that call it quits with all the upheaval.
I probably just wasted 15 minutes of my life responding...
Last edited:
Clinton John
Active member
You did. Because I don't care about you or anyone else opinion on the subject.
Y'all are free to your thoughts and opinions and I'm free to mine.