All federal waterfowl and wetlands research proposed to be eliminated from USGS

[Brad Bortner]

USGS to eliminate Biological research

The Office of Management and Budget has proposed to eliminate the biological resources division of USGS. This division is in charge of all of the USGS research stations like Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Station, the National Wildlife Health Center, The Alaska Science Center, the Cooperative Wildlife Research Units at the land grant universities across the country, the Bird Banding Lab and other important waterfowl and migratory bird research activities. This will cripple waterfowl research and management in the US.The concept is to replace all research with competitive grants to universities. I see major flaws with this approach when it comes to long-term, focused research or monitoring.For example, can you imagine a university running the bird banding lab? There are terabytes of banding data to maintain, lots of bands to distribute, handling reports from banners and hunters and making the data available to managers. If you are as concerned about this as I am, please contact your members of Congress and urge them to continue the biological research function of USGS. If cuts need to be made, they should be targeted and strategic.

 

[Clinton John]

I don't see it as a issue.

I mean look how good our federal authority's have been managing our waterfowl resources.

Duck and geese numbers are down.

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.

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.

Time to give some else a try and see if they can do it better.

 

[William Reinicke]

I don't see it as a issue.

Me either, sometimes change might be good.

I mean look how good our federal authority's have been managing our waterfowl resources.

Duck and geese numbers are down.

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.

Uh.... we need banding projects so we can get bands for our lanyards. The banding stops, so do our trophy birds we pull ever so often.

Not to argue, but there are some weird things that happen some years and thsi is why, I believe, there is a need for banding. I agree with you mostly though, but for example, when the big oil spill happened in the gulf, we killed 3 redhead bands from NJ that year in Co. So those birds likely went south, saw black tar in their water ways and started west. All our other redhead bands came from Nevada. But why do some of the nevada birds go east and some go west? I had buddies in Cali killing the same redhead bands that I was? Also, when whislters started to fly outside Florida and the mississippi and started coming west, I remember major banding projects happening. One was even killed in california that year. So birds do weird things, and i do think it is important to keep enough banding projects going to track if something is changing, and if it is, why is it changing? One of my snow goose bands was banded in Alaska, but I killed it in tx and it was an 8 month old juvie. The biologist said every other bird killed on that project was killed in Cali, but I had the one outlier bird that year. He emailed me and asked for a pic to verify correct numbers reported. Of course as birds got older, they can move to different flyways, but he said it was rare for juvies to necessarily move that much in their first year of life. Kind of like the brant we killed 2 years ago in Texas..... again, what is an atlantic brant doing in a wheat field in Amarillo with a bunch of Cacks? So little cool nuances like that is why I think it is important to maintain the projects and research.

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.

Time to give some else a try and see if they can do it better.

 

[William Reinicke]

Also, as the issues out east keep arising with the lack of migration and the messed up farm mallard that have been presented, I think its going to be super important to keep banding projects going and watch how more and more bands are killed further and further south each year, as they push to bring back the wild mallard population on the east coast. I dont think they necessarily care about exact locations birds are going, but more how far south they are making it. East coast mallard are in a bad bad way. The gov't really messed up the migration and the southern states in the Atlantic are struggling with their mallard. have been for some time now. It will get fixed, but it may take decades, but I think core banding projects out of the NE area would be very important to ensure that migration starts to recover and come back. Also, when it does start to recover, how many are flying more west to Kansas and the big plots of corn fed plots? Food sources in the midwest are pulling a lot of the east coast mallard and what they have also seen is instead of a migration North/south, its more Southwest/Northwest. Between food and terrible genetics, the east coast mallard are borderline non-existent and we need to figure out how to try and bring it back.

 

[jode hillman]

I don't see it as a issue.

I mean look how good our federal authority's have been managing our waterfowl resources.

Duck and geese numbers are down.

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.

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.

Time to give some else a try and see if they can do it better.

I think the big issue is going to be the lack of population status update. The midwinter count as well as the breeding survey count allows us to set appropriate seasons.

Without that data it will just be a shot in the dark.

The large trends of downward spiral duck numbers surely are not going to get better with less information.

 

[Carl]

Sorry, but this IS a HUGE issue if you care about the resource.
The management of migratory birds (waterfowl mainly) since the 1930 has been one of the greatest success stories in conservation and hunting, ever. Only the recovery of deer and turkey populations come close to comparing.
Waterfowl management has been a cooperative effort between the federal govt. agencies and the states, as well as with Canada and Mexico, since the day the Migratory Bird Treaty Act passed.
And its been a huge success because its backed up by sound science.
And because of a relatively small groups of biologists that have dedicated their careers and their lives to waterfowl management, at both the state and federal level. With support from groups like DU and Delta, as well as research centers at universities across the US and Canada.

Is the system perfect?
Nope. But overall it has worked and is working.

Are migration patterns changing?
Yep. Is that the federal agencies fault?
No. Its climate change.
Winters are warmer, weather patterns have changed.
The data and science is clear and unrefutable. Period. End of discussion.

Are waterfowl numbers down since the early 2000s? Yes.
Why? For the most part, its reduced rainfall in the breeding grounds and loss of breeding habitat.
Are state and federal agencies to blame for lower rainfall and drought? No.
Are humans to blame for the decrease in breeding habitat. Yes. Very clearly yes.
The only benefit to climate change is that it might open up new breeding areas as boreal forests migrate north.

Wholesale changing the system now is unjustified, scientifically unsound, short-sighted and purely a political stunt.
That's my 2 cents.

 

[William Reinicke]

Hmmm interesting. @jode hillman make VERY good point with this. @Carl you're obviously not wrong and no one disagrees here. But you dont think it wouldnt change hands and all this data woudnt be collected by the main universities in all these different areas? I think if the universities wanted this grant money, they would have to provide "x" amount of data to ensure the money flow coming in. More data from more areas might be more accurate that whats provided now? Maybe? Universities provide info all the time for other areas of research. Im not saying it should or shouldnt, but I look at the introduction of farm mallard to wild mallard, thinking this would be a fruitful idea, which obviously severely hindered the atlantic mallard. I feel like this could of been researched small scale before delving all in. Maybe university research and data and more local information might be better? Again, all speculation, I dont know as much as some do here, so I speak all based on hypotheticals. I see what universities do around the healthcare world and studying local issues vs other areas of the country etc etc. I would think something of this sort of data could also be translated over to the waterfowl world, if done right, and be very positive for the waterfowl world. I do also think it could severely hinder the issue as well. Of course it all depends on the programs and how serious the universities took it. Idk mixed feelings here about the entire topic obviously. Maybe a hybrid model and test the waters before a full transition? i dont know.

 

[jode hillman]

Hmmm interesting. @jode hillman make VERY good point with this. @Carl you're obviously not wrong and no one disagrees here. But you dont think it wouldnt change hands and all this data woudnt be collected by the main universities in all these different areas? I think if the universities wanted this grant money, they would have to provide "x" amount of data to ensure the money flow coming in. More data from more areas might be more accurate that whats provided now? Maybe? Universities provide info all the time for other areas of research. Im not saying it should or shouldnt, but I look at the introduction of farm mallard to wild mallard, thinking this would be a fruitful idea, which obviously severely hindered the atlantic mallard. I feel like this could of been researched small scale before delving all in. Maybe university research and data and more local information might be better? Again, all speculation, I dont know as much as some do here, so I speak all based on hypotheticals. I see what universities do around the healthcare world and studying local issues vs other areas of the country etc etc. I would think something of this sort of data could also be translated over to the waterfowl world, if done right, and be very positive for the waterfowl world. I do also think it could severely hinder the issue as well. Of course it all depends on the programs and how serious the universities took it. Idk mixed feelings here about the entire topic obviously. Maybe a hybrid model and test the waters before a full transition? i dont know.

I think the obvious " fox in the henhouse" so to speak with major university funding is the fact that each university will no doubt collect and interpret data to further their own interests. Both financial and otherwise. Universities are for-profit, and as a bottom line lots of research is geared so it can garner funding for more research.

These are completely hypothetical examples but let's say the University of Florida deems that teal numbers seem to be booming in Florida. And that warrants a 21 day Teal season. Even if the actual date on the ground suggest otherwise.

Numbers can be skewed and interpretations Veered one way or the other.

On the flipside let's stay in my home state of New Jersey "Rutgers" finds that Atlantic breeding mallard numbers are in precipitous decline and therefore we need to close the season. (This is a statement that is very close to true )
However perhaps they further that point by saying most hunters can't differentiate between A hen Mallard and hen Blackduck , so therefore they decide to close the season on both.

Rutgers receives huge funding by a liberal state government and therefore will try to please those that pay their way, so to speak.
We see it every four years with or New Jersey black bear hunt.

Is the federal waterfowl management system perfect? Absolutely not. But much of it is due to lack of funding and lack of information.

With more resources more can be accomplished.

And I say this as someone who volunteers my time on our own state agencies for waterfowl survey and season evaluations.

 

[SJ Fairbank]

However perhaps they further that point by saying most hunters can't differentiate between A hen Mallard and hen Blackduck , so therefore they decide to close the season on both.

There's truth in this statement. One reason CT has never had an early teal season is the state's belief that hunters can't ID a teal from other ducks.

 

[William Reinicke]

I think the obvious " fox in the henhouse" so to speak with major university funding is the fact that each university will no doubt collect and interpret data to further their own interests. Both financial and otherwise. Universities are for-profit, and as a bottom line lots of research is geared so it can garner funding for more research.

These are completely hypothetical examples but let's say the University of Florida deems that teal numbers seem to be booming in Florida. And that warrants a 21 day Teal season. Even if the actual date on the ground suggest otherwise.

Numbers can be skewed and interpretations Veered one way or the other.

Dont disagree in the slightest. I also think it would still need to be compiled data across the country to make limits etc. obviously there would still be limits based on flyways across the country, not by state. So all a university could do is provide data in their area of research. A group would have to be in charge with overseeing all data from universities and compile this research into one big picture to figure out limits per flyway. It would be some work, and would it actually save any money or help with anything thats not already being done?????? Thats a huge question, but I lean towards PROBABLY NOT!

On the flipside let's stay in my home state of New Jersey "Rutgers" finds that Atlantic breeding mallard numbers are in precipitous decline and therefore we need to close the season. (This is a statement that is very close to true )
However perhaps they further that point by saying most hunters can't differentiate between A hen Mallard and hen Blackduck , so therefore they decide to close the season on both.

Mistakes would be made, but they are made now. No Snow goose conservation season this year in panhandle of texas and yearly limits were 5/day. Why??? Because of a lackluster migration for the 23/24 season, not because numbers were down. Yet you cross over statelines and you could shoot 25/day and there was a conservation season... Cant make this up, but we saw this happen just a few months ago. Its not being managed well right now, something needs to change, because making bogus calls like this is a terrible terrible thing. Snow geese were in full migration back to the panhandle for the 24/25 season and guys were pissed there wasnt a conservation season. No reason to make quick judgments like this, and if they had actually monitored numbers up north, and accurately watched migrations, maybe they would of chalked it up to be a bad migration year vs population being down.

Rutgers receives huge funding by a liberal state government and therefore will try to please those that pay their way, so to speak.
We see it every four years with or New Jersey black bear hunt.

This last statement right here is what worries me the absolute most about it being kicked over to universities and this would be the reason i HIGHLY dislike this idea. I think universities are all for the profit of themselves, not necessarily for the research the well being of the waterfowl species. now, do I think how its being managed today is good, nope, I would like to see more funding and maybe new projects from the federal waterfowl management first, and see if it could show improvement before going to the university route. I also think throwing this idea out there, isnt necessarily a bad thing either, might wake up those behind this management system and start getting their act together before it is kicked over to the universities.

Is the federal waterfowl management system perfect? Absolutely not. But much of it is due to lack of funding and lack of information.

With more resources more can be accomplished.

And I say this as someone who volunteers my time on our own state agencies for waterfowl survey and season evaluations.

I dont disagree with you sir, I really dont. But you know what they say.... doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition on insanity. Sometimes change, or talking about change, kicks things into gear in positive ways.

 

[Wyatt Russo]

I believe banding definitely has more pros than cons. As much as I love putting new bands on my lanyard, species that get over banded get over targeted. On long island where I hunt for example, the Brant are heavily banded for research purposes obviously, but are also targeted heavily because of it. NYS DEC always busts guys for shooting over limit trying to get a band. People come from all over the country not only to get a bucket list bird, but band as well. They need to find a fine line between the amount of banding done to balance the trophy and most importantly the research. Now due to the heavy band hunting pressure and I’m sure other reasons as well, the highly regulated season and limit is completely shut down.

 

[Clinton John]

I think the big issue is going to be the lack of population status update. The midwinter count as well as the breeding survey count allows us to set appropriate seasons.

Without that data it will just be a shot in the dark.

The large trends of downward spiral duck numbers surely are not going to get better with less information.

We aren't getting correct info now so what's the harm and letting someone else give it ago.

Your blindly naive if you think the counts are correct or honest.

 

[William Reinicke]

I believe banding definitely has more pros than cons. As much as I love putting new bands on my lanyard, species that get over banded get over targeted. On long island where I hunt for example, the Brant are heavily banded for research purposes obviously, but are also targeted heavily because of it. NYS DEC always busts guys for shooting over limit trying to get a band. People come from all over the country not only to get a bucket list bird, but band as well. They need to find a fine line between the amount of banding done to balance the trophy and most importantly the research. Now due to the heavy band hunting pressure and I’m sure other reasons as well, the highly regulated season and limit is completely shut down.

Not sure what the fix is for this, and social media has completely messed this up and made it even easier. years ago, they had a website you could get on and see where birds were being killed with bands. It was public info, but was taken down. I loved that it was taken down for this very reason. but its not hard to get on social media and see whos posting what where and how often and figure out which area is doing a fresh project.

I think theres a new app now though, that for a small subscription, will tell you where the latest projects are being done. Some kid told me about it last season. Makes me sick people are paying for that. But lots of places waterfowl is pay to play already, and we think this is bad..... just look how the treat governor tags in states for big game and the kind of money that runs around that sport. Waterfowl isnt all that bad comparatively, and im not sure what the fix is for this, but you do make a VERY valid point. Lots of skewed results because lots of property line hunters on fresh banding projects.

Not even going to lie, two of my mallard bands came just like this. Had a buddy who was a biology student that went and helped band a bunch of birds down at one of our major refuges. Next morning I went and set up on the river system about 10 miles north of the refuge. First pair of mallard, both banded. I actually saw the band on the hen, shot her and then shot the drake. Knowing she was banded but the dog went and got last bird dropped (drake) and it came back banded. Went and got the hen, banded as well. No info on either band for about 4 months. Ive never done anything like this again, but it is easy to do if you know when and where its being done. Talk about completely messing up and skewing results, but we have to remember, not every band on a project will be killed this way and even if 50% make it to a destination to provide adequate data, thats still pretty good data.

 

[William Reinicke]

We aren't getting correct info now so what's the harm and letting someone else give it ago.

Your blindly naive if you think the counts are correct or honest.

You are naive to think universities can do it better though. Whose to say they dont run it to the ground chasing profit? Do universities really provide adequate honest data or do they provide data that benefits their biggest donors for that project?

I see the argument for both sides. I would like to see extra funding and an opportunity to be fixed now. If it doesnt, then lets give it a shot. obviously lots of federal funding was cut everywhere with COVID and i think this obviously no different. I know in my area, there hasnt been a fresh project on anything since covid. just last year, we finally killed a fresh leg band on a mallard. Thats first Ive seen since 2019. Before Covid, every 2 years there were fresh mallard bands being done about 200-300 miles north of where I like to hunt. The biologist color filled the numbers to a different color every time he did a new one. Kind of a cool twist on his projects. What was fun is when you knew you killed a new color and then later that season killed a different color and knew how much older that band would be because you killed that color in the past. The newest color filled mallard band I have is from 2019, and there hasnt been one since.

 

[Eric Patterson]

Your blindly naive if you think the counts are correct or honest.

Please explain your contentions and give specific information and PROOF that justify your position. I find your statement typical of someone with ZERO knowledge of the inner workings or science behind the things you are critical of. Set me straight. What makes your opinion more than that of just another southern duck hunter who distrusts all things from the federal government and that you don't understand nor have never taken the time to learn about beyond what your hunting buddies talk about?

 

[jode hillman]

We aren't getting correct info now so what's the harm and letting someone else give it ago.

Your blindly naive if you think the counts are correct or honest.

They may not be completely accurate but I don't believe numbers are manipulated purposely. What would be the intent, Goal, or incentive to do so? It's a multinational effort.

So it's not like it is the state of North Dakota alone calling a moratorium on their ducks as to limit pressure?

 

[Carl]

Your blindly naive if you think the counts are correct or honest.

Please provide credible evidence that counts are not conducted in accordance with methodology an/or anyone conducting them has been altering data to produce dishonest results.

 

[Eric Patterson]

Please provide credible evidence that counts are not conducted in accordance with methodology an/or anyone conducting them has been altering data to produce dishonest results.

Further, please provide parameters on required accuracy of data to meets its intended purposes. Also, back up, please state the specifics of the data you reference. What data is collected, by what means, at what cost in terms of manpower and financial outlay, under what constraints? What correction factors are applied? What verification and validation processes are employed? What are the risks to the population under study to perturbations in the data? While you are at it what is its intended purpose and how sensitive are the downstream uses to its accuracy? What is the overall philosophy of the data collected and means by which it is collected? How have these changed over time?

I could go on, but I really want to know if you know what you are talking about with your claims.

 

[Clinton John]

Please explain your contentions and give specific information and PROOF that justify your position. I find your statement typical of someone with ZERO knowledge of the inner workings or science behind the things you are critical of. Set me straight. What makes your opinion more than that of just another southern duck hunter who distrusts all things from the federal government and that you don't understand nor have never taken the time to learn about beyond what your hunting buddies talk about?

I can't legally tell you how I know, they have lied about survey data on LA.

That's all I can give you or anyone else.

Not worried if anyone believes me or not.

 

[Eric Patterson]

I can't legally tell you how I know, they have lied about survey data on LA.

That's all I can give you or anyone else.

Not worried if anyone believes me or not.

Then please take the matter up with the Office of Inspector General (OIG).