Very interesting, thanks for sharing!
Migration initiative on the ropes
- Thread starter BuzzH
- Start date
MT FWP tried this several times during my tenure there. Fisherman were funding the maintenance and up-keep at all of the fishing accesses via the Dingle-Johnson fund. The fishing accesses were being inundated and primarily used by "non-consumptive" recreation, (ie. tubers, floaters etc.) I think they finally got around this recently by requiring a conservation license to use/enter a state-owned FAS.
sapperJ24
Well-known member
So in review, the 2024 Federal Budget was $6.8 trillion, of which $1.8 trillion was discretionary and $960 billion of which was for nondefense purposes.
The Cooperative Research Units account for 0.0016% of discretionary funding and 0.0029% of nondefense funding.
Sure, maybe this should be solely a state funded operations, or maybe the cuts must start somewhere.
The popular Child Tax Credit cost $122 billion in 2023, or about 6.7% of 2024 discretionary expenditures.
The Cooperative Research Units account for 0.0016% of discretionary funding and 0.0029% of nondefense funding.
Sure, maybe this should be solely a state funded operations, or maybe the cuts must start somewhere.
The popular Child Tax Credit cost $122 billion in 2023, or about 6.7% of 2024 discretionary expenditures.
Interesting discussion. Glad it kept on the rails. Often this topic, and those similar to it, go to hell pretty quickly.
To the topic of funding for migration initiatives being cut, part of the reason Federal funding was brought to the equation was that the Federal decision makers (Congress) realized that the activities they were allowing on their lands, BLM in the case of most of Wyoming, was having a huge negative impact on the wildlife held in trust by the state of Wyoming.
So, would the non-residents of Wyoming, whether NJ soccer moms, hunters from NY or WY, or others, want to see huge increases in energy costs due to a need to mitigate (pay for) the impacts Federal land activities on a state-based resource?
We can easily rationalize our own reasons for support/opposition. In this country, we have never had free markets when it comes to our resource economies. Consumers have never been required to absorb all the costs imposed on locals, landscapes, and wildlife. If so, energy in this country would costs what it costs in Europe.
We've decided, via our elected officials in Congress, to continue to subsidize energy production of all forms and just pay some minimal amounts to offset impacts on things like clean water that gets impacted or wildlife that gets squeezed. That is part of an informal agreement that has been accepted over the course of decades.
One of the commitments to that agreement is Federal contribution toward the programs, in this case the Wyoming Migration Initiative, that helps study the impacts caused by the demand Americans have for low cost subsidized energy/resources. Those Federal contributions are negligible compared to the savings Americans realize from lower energy/resource costs. Wildlife and landscapes pay most of that cost.
So, who is getting the better deal, Americans who don't have to pay true market value for energy and resources, or the citizens of Wyoming who get very small contribution from the rest of America in the form of grant funding for a program that studies the needs for and impacts to migrating wildlife on a landscape being converted to industrial energy and resource production?
The informal agreement of Federal funding to help mitigate and offset a very small portion of the costs incurred seems like one hell of a deal for all of us Americans who use energy and resources. Yet, the deal evidently is no longer acceptable and Americans, via elected officials, have decided that Wyoming can GFY and deal with less wildlife and habitat so we can all have subsidized energy and resources.
@Treeshark stated a lot of this is "more nuanced." I agree. Depends on how deep one want to look how wide one wants to open the lens when looking at these complicated issues.
My comment earlier in this thread, which still holds, is that I think I'm getting one hell of a deal in the form of lower prices on energy and resources, and I support some of my Federal tax dollars going back towards mitigating the impacts caused by activities that give me those cheap subsidized outcomes. That's what the Federal portion of funding for WMI represents; mitigation.
Every time I hunt or drive through these areas I see that deer, elk, pronghorn, sage grouse, and other species are "writing the checks" that my monthly budget benefits from via subsidized lower resources/energy. If American decides we can't contribute very small amounts to help offset some of that, which is what funding of WMI represents, then wildlife has a terminal path in this country. And if so, shame on us; we'll be judged as the selfish bastards who milked it all for our own short-term benefit.
To the topic of funding for migration initiatives being cut, part of the reason Federal funding was brought to the equation was that the Federal decision makers (Congress) realized that the activities they were allowing on their lands, BLM in the case of most of Wyoming, was having a huge negative impact on the wildlife held in trust by the state of Wyoming.
So, would the non-residents of Wyoming, whether NJ soccer moms, hunters from NY or WY, or others, want to see huge increases in energy costs due to a need to mitigate (pay for) the impacts Federal land activities on a state-based resource?
We can easily rationalize our own reasons for support/opposition. In this country, we have never had free markets when it comes to our resource economies. Consumers have never been required to absorb all the costs imposed on locals, landscapes, and wildlife. If so, energy in this country would costs what it costs in Europe.
We've decided, via our elected officials in Congress, to continue to subsidize energy production of all forms and just pay some minimal amounts to offset impacts on things like clean water that gets impacted or wildlife that gets squeezed. That is part of an informal agreement that has been accepted over the course of decades.
One of the commitments to that agreement is Federal contribution toward the programs, in this case the Wyoming Migration Initiative, that helps study the impacts caused by the demand Americans have for low cost subsidized energy/resources. Those Federal contributions are negligible compared to the savings Americans realize from lower energy/resource costs. Wildlife and landscapes pay most of that cost.
So, who is getting the better deal, Americans who don't have to pay true market value for energy and resources, or the citizens of Wyoming who get very small contribution from the rest of America in the form of grant funding for a program that studies the needs for and impacts to migrating wildlife on a landscape being converted to industrial energy and resource production?
The informal agreement of Federal funding to help mitigate and offset a very small portion of the costs incurred seems like one hell of a deal for all of us Americans who use energy and resources. Yet, the deal evidently is no longer acceptable and Americans, via elected officials, have decided that Wyoming can GFY and deal with less wildlife and habitat so we can all have subsidized energy and resources.
@Treeshark stated a lot of this is "more nuanced." I agree. Depends on how deep one want to look how wide one wants to open the lens when looking at these complicated issues.
My comment earlier in this thread, which still holds, is that I think I'm getting one hell of a deal in the form of lower prices on energy and resources, and I support some of my Federal tax dollars going back towards mitigating the impacts caused by activities that give me those cheap subsidized outcomes. That's what the Federal portion of funding for WMI represents; mitigation.
Every time I hunt or drive through these areas I see that deer, elk, pronghorn, sage grouse, and other species are "writing the checks" that my monthly budget benefits from via subsidized lower resources/energy. If American decides we can't contribute very small amounts to help offset some of that, which is what funding of WMI represents, then wildlife has a terminal path in this country. And if so, shame on us; we'll be judged as the selfish bastards who milked it all for our own short-term benefit.
To be fair though, states have been as guilty of changing the terms of that informal agreement as the fed has, if not more so.
Do you feel this type of informal agreement between states and the federal government is in peril? In my observation over the past several months, it is. This is one of the main problems with “informal agreements” in the first place- they are build on a shaky foundation.
The more self-sufficiency states are able to show in handling their own affairs in terms of wildlife management, the more they will be protected from the whims of outside influences like is happening currently. This isn’t necessarily the binary outcome scenario that is being put forth in my opinion. There is a third option, which is likely the best one: states can pick up their own tab a bit more than they have lately and these programs can continue as they have been.
Western states have become very comfortable with exploiting wildlife resources, and have become equally uncomfortable paying for them.
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Couple things come to mind.
1) I think this is about making the Federal government an unreliable partner. Every time research is approved, be it on pronghorn or new cancer drugs or anything, the receiver of the funds has to worry if the next election will end the project. That is by far a larger problem that just this migration initiative.
2) particular to wildlife and this initiative, you have to do the research where the subject matter lies. Asking people in Ohio or Delaware to help
fund a pronghorn migration study isnt reasonable. This makes your view of state funding impossible from a practical perspective.
We either divvy up the cost of the research to the 350m US taxpayers or divvy it up amount the few thousand that get pronghorn tags in WY each year. Then you have grizzly bear, cougar, sheep, and all the other subjects that people have interest in. WY sure can’t fund it all. I think you know what the end result of all that would be- the research wouldn’t get done…and the natural resources would continue to be exploited to the last $.
I have said for a long time that we need to start putting a value on some of these natural things, be is real money generated in the economy or the simple value in the peace of mind that comes from being in the outdoors. Somewhat contradictory though, this country will go to complete shit when we have to put a $value on everything because all we do is argue about money.
That would be a bit of a piccadilly for the folks in Wyoming then to be sure, but as I said earlier in the thread- there are lots of funding levers not currently being pulled.
I think we need to start recognizing the difference between states not being able to fund things on their own and just not wanting to.
I do think you are spot on about this part.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
But there is a reason those levers aren’t pulled. WY isnt going to implement a state income tax to fund any university research. The state might have a budget surplus due to Oil, gas and coal royalties but those are highly dependent on the market. I’m not sure what other levers WY has to do this, so when you say ‘lots’, I would need to see them to opine on the math.
The core of this problem is a lot of organizations basically have a contract with the government for funding. Pulling funding is basically breaking the contract. Legally, many have a case. But when the executive branch tells the judicial branch to go fly a kite, you don’t have much a democracy anymore. Any lever is at risk from year to year.
Improved partnerships with wildlife orgs
State Income Tax Increase
Resident Tag Fee Increase
Non-Resident Tag Fee Increase
Non-Resident Tag Allocation Increase
Auction Tags
Raffle Tags
Taxable/Fee Increase for Landowner Tags
You’re correct in saying there is a reason states haven’t pulled these levers - it’s because they haven’t had to. Why would they make that decision if others are going to step in and help with the much of the heavy financial lifting?
That gravy train appears to be ending to at least to some degree, and some states have a tough decision ahead of them. This thread is discussing Wyoming- a state that is way more financially capable of managing their wildlife affairs than some here are claiming.
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I think you oversimplify the workings of a state and federal budget and over estimate the willingness of people to part with their money.
The entire system is being turned into a partisan battle. Buying votes is the way to power. You see below not everything is cut.
(Also note, much of funding is still frozen so they can plug it into the tax bill like it doesn’t exist. If the bill passes, much of it may be restored in another “we have generously given you back the money we contractually promised you years ago because we are so kind and caring to those who vote for us” TS post.)
USDA opens General, Continuous CRP enrollment
Limited number of acres available for Continuous Conservation Reserve Program.
BuzzH
Well-known member
The thing I have never understood is why states like Wyoming with tons of energy worth hundreds of billions don't have their own state oil companies. That would be a great thing, we could manipulate the markets, charge what we want to the American Public, and also realize the profits we allow big oil to make. We could also get the huge tax benefits that the feds allow big oil to take advantage of. That would certainly give us all the money we needed to fund things like the migration initiative.
But, since that's not the case, I'm in line with what @Big Fin posted. If the American Public is going to benefit from Wyoming in such a huge way and allow big oil to exploit the chit out of my state, then those same tax payers should be paying for some, if not all, of the mitigation.
These are the kinds of issues that make things change, and IMO/E this is short term problem with an administration trying to shore up a budget via cutting revenue and important programs for nothing more than a political agenda. That agenda being more tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of just about everything and anything else.
I think before the panic starts, we just need to make it through FY 26 and with R's likely losing the house and senate, we could see things make a 180 degree turn.
Its really too bad that these huge political swings happen for things like the migration initiative, climate science, hell, science in general. Its not good policy to bury your head in the sand and pretend that people don't care about wildlife, clean water, clean air, intact habitat, etc. In spite of the current administrations attempts to do away with it, the good work of many in the field of science will continue. If this administration will prove anything, it will be to solidify just how important science and research really are...which they're proving on almost a daily basis.
I look for a strong resurgence in science in, oh, 2-3 years.
BuzzH
Well-known member
In order:
Improved partnerships already happen.
State income tax, tell that to the Freedom Caucus and see where that goes.
Resident tag increases, I'm fine with that but again, tell it to the Freedom Caucus.
Non-Resident tag increases, well, you're just joking.
Non-Resident tag allocation increase...right then. NR's already get wayyyyy past their allotment. Why you never acknowledge that is no mystery, facts seem to be in short supply when you play the downtrodden WY NR hunter act.
Auction tags are already a saturated market in Wyoming
Raffle tags already a saturated market in Wyoming
Transferable landowner tags are not going to happen.
That sounds like a bunch of “don’t want to’s” vs “can’t’s” to me, @BuzzH.
Much like reconciling the budget shortfalls of state wildlife management, the Freedom Caucus is a challenge for the residents of Wyoming.
Much like reconciling the budget shortfalls of state wildlife management, the Freedom Caucus is a challenge for the residents of Wyoming.
Last edited:
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 4,198
It’s one of those “select all that apply” questions @Forkyfinder.
You sit there racking your brain, then get to the last one that says “all of the above” and realize you just overthought things
You sit there racking your brain, then get to the last one that says “all of the above” and realize you just overthought things
BuzzH
Well-known member
Anytime you want to move to Wyoming and try to get those things done...have at it. Easy to bark from the cheap seats, whole different story to pass your want list.
One thing for certain if you accomplished it, you would be the most popular Resident in all of Wyoming.
Last edited:
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 4,198
My point was that it will be the NR who foots the bill. Its basic politics.It’s one of those “select all that apply” questions @Forkyfinder.
You sit there racking your brain, then get to the last one that says “all of the above” and realize you just overthought things
Agreed.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Why go through the hassle of buying and feeding the chicken when you get the eggs for free?
