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