How the Budget Bill Will Decimate Conservation

March 14, 2011

By Bob Marshall

A Special Report by Bob Marshall, Conservation Editor

Unlike their counterparts at hard-line environmental groups, leaders of sportsmen's conservation organizations tend to measure their words. They avoid hyperbole, don't hyperventilate, and never hint that the sky is falling.

That changed when they got a look at the budget priorities unveiled recently by the House of Representatives. Now they’re all looking nervously at the sky and using words like disaster, eviscerate, and destroy.

The reason is “HR 1,” the GOP plan (it got no votes from Democrats) to begin reducing the nation's budget deficit. It takes a deadly axe to fish, wildlife, and sportsmen's programs while leaving unscathed habitat-consuming industries like oil and gas. In fact, many sections will not lower the deficit but simply take aim at environmental laws that polluting industries have opposed for years—laws that sportsmen's groups support because of their ultimate impact on fish and wildlife habitat.

In sentiments echoed across the outdoors community, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership said while sportsmen understand the critical need to reduce the deficit, they could not support this bill because it would "eviscerate funding for conservation programs critical to fish, wildlife and the future of outdoor recreation in America."

Among the more odious features of the bill for sportsmen:

• Eliminate funding for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, which has contributed almost $872 million—and has leveraged private funds of more than $2.64 billion--to protect 25 million acres of wetlands critical to waterfowl. Ducks Unlimited leaders say this move could cripple waterfowl hunting.

• Reduce the Wetlands Reserve Program by 50,000 acres.

• Cut options for the Conservation Reserve Program, critical to upland birds, waterfowl and a whole other range of wildlife.

• Cut almost $400 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is composed of offshore oil lease royalties supposedly dedicated to wildlife habitat.

• Forbid the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing new guidelines for the Clean Water Act, which attempts to restore protections to 20 million acres of small wetlands and many of the nation's streams--protections that were removed by Supreme Court rulings a few years back. This is just one of many features of the bill that have nothing to do with the deficit but just take aim at environmental rules opposed by major industries, such as energy and developers. Many of these features were actually added as riders.

• Forbid the EPA to enforce carbon-reduction regulations, the key greenhouse gas responsible for climate change, which wildlife officials say is the gravest threat to hunting and fishing--and which already is submerging key coastal estuaries along the Gulf Coast. The oil and power industries oppose the regulations.

• Gag and blind federal agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on the subject of climate change by forbidding them from doing research and collecting data.

• Kill funding for the new BLM Wild Lands Policy, a hard-fought victory for sportsmen that reinstalled the agency's mandate to study lands that might qualify for wilderness protection and be saved from energy development, something the Bush Administration had stripped. This is a key program to saving some of the most pristine pubic fishing and hunting acres left in the nation, but was also opposed by industry.

And that's just for starters.

The depth of this assault on fish, wildlife and environmental quality took the sportsmen's community by surprise. They expected a rough ride when last fall's elections changed the political landscape in Washington, because many of the new GOP reps came with Tea Party backing and a single-minded mantra of cutting federal spending. But the cavalier approach to these programs was unexpected, because in many cases it will actually have a negative impact on the nation's economy while harming fish, wildlife and sportsmen. The only beneficiaries in many cases are industries.

"The federal government spends about $5 billion a year in conservation programs that are essential to the habitat that supports hunting and fishing, but it gets back about $14 billion in direct tax payments from people who make their livings in those industries--and that's a conservative estimate," explained Dale Hall, Ducks Unlimited CEO and former Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

"This makes no sense. Yes, we need to cut, but we need to do it intelligently. And we have to look everywhere."

Indeed, the long list of riders aimed strictly at environmental programs opposed by polluting industries has created an ominous feeling across the sportsmen's conservation community. This majority will be in power for at least two years, and HR 1 only deals with what's left of the current fiscal year. If this is their mission statement toward fish and wildlife, the first cut may not be the deepest.

That's why groups like the TRCP are urging sportsmen to let their representatives know they’re not happy with the budget they passed, and to tell their senators--especially if they are Republicans--that they oppose these cuts. Find out how to contact your representatives and senators here. www.contactingthecongress.org Read the letter from sportsmen’s groups to Congress objecting to proposed cuts here. http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/02/sportsmans_group_object_t... See the National Wildlife Federation’s detailed list of conservation, fish, and wildlife programs targeted for cuts here. http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/News-by-Topic/General...

Comments (27)

Top Rated

All Comments

from labrador12 wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

We have a 1.8 trillion dollar deficit. In my opinion the budget is going to have to be cut. Let's go back to a 1990 level of spending and pay attention to the spending authorized by the Constitution. To pay off the 14.6 trillion dollar debt we are going to have to sell assets or cut spending big time. Do you want to sell ANWR to China? When the government is involved the costs are always inflated. Outdoorsmen and women are going to have to forget about doing things the way we have gotten used to doing things. We are going to have to wean ourselves off from government programs. Do it yourself, do it locally don't expect urban constituencies to understand the issues that are important to us and to help pay for them. It ain't going to be fun, but you have to run the numbers. Complaining that Corp A got this and Corp B got that is the way we got into this hole. Log rolling in Congress is how we got into this problem. Government is never the solution, most of the time it is the problem.

-9 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from kirkdeeter wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

That's baloney labrador. We, as sportsmen should press our government to serve the collective interests of hunters and fishers. We shouldn't "forget about doing things the way we have gotten used to"... in fact we should endeavor to make things better for future generations. Fiscal responsibility doesn't mean screwing hunting and fishing habitat... in fact, real responsibility would dictate otherwise. As Bob points out, a lot of this is window dressing, and/or a veil for subsidized industries to eat away at conservation protections... and the real dollars "saved" don't amount to a few days worth of our sadly burdened military playing police force on the other side of the world. It's easy to be a rhetoric drone. It's more imperative that anyone who really considers himself or herself a sportsman/woman take an honest look at the issues and priorities... and voice concern, especially if that means doing so within your political party. That's exactly where I'm coming from.

+20 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from rock rat wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

On the other hand the current administration's proposed budget would increase funding to Fish and Wildlife Service. http://us.vocuspr.com/Newsroom/Query.aspx?SiteName=FWS&Entity=PRAsset&SF...

The entire proposed deficit cut that the Republican controlled congress wants to make could be made by raising taxes 4.5% on people making over a million profit a year. How can anyone be serious about deficits when corporate tax rates are at record lows. Exon paid zero in taxes last year.

+8 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

Actually, most of the people proposing to pump US Taxpayer Owned Oil out of US Taxpayer Owned Land in the ANWR are planning to sell it to China. This is now what happens to most resources on US land; it gets sold overseas and the US Taxpayer gets nothing but a cleanup operation.

Conservation funding is so little in the US budget that it need not be cut. What we need to do is cut military spending and Medicare by about 60% each.

+4 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from labrador12 wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

How much of the US Debt do you think Japan will buy this year?? If they sell the debt they own to raise money who's going to buy it?? Do you guys own any Treasuries? If we confiscate all the money of all the billionaires in the US we could only pay about half of this year's deficit. We are borrowing 42 cents of each dollar the government spends. It just gets worse over time. The interest rate is going to go up, the amount of interest we pay on the debt goes up. What would you cut?? How much do you want to pay in taxes? It Happens.

-7 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from seadog wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

This is what happens when you vote Republican--of course the Dems like to screw us over in their own ways. I'm sick of both parties!

+6 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from jackie_treehorn wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

First off, it'd be great if everything was on the table and available for analysis and tax cuts. But, alas, everything is not on the table. All low-hanging fruits (conservation) will be cut because they are simple and easy and don't have a ton of money & lobbyists behind them (like defense, big oil & corporations). Plus, the politicians can get on their soap boxes and say they made cuts.

I sense an opportunity for those people out there who truly are fed up with the Left vs. Right BS. Come together on our land/conservation rights.

+7 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Todd Tanner wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

Many thanks for a great post, Bob. This is a huge story, and sportsmen need to know that our politicians are asking us to bend over and grab our ankles. If the House has its way, we’re going to loose more hunting and fishing than we can possibly imagine.

By the way, Kirk is dead on. We need to stand up for ourselves. If we don’t hold our politicians accountable, we’re going to get screwed. And if that happens, we won’t have anyone to blame but ourselves ...

Call your congressman and senators and ask them to fully fund our conservation initiatives and protect the places we hunt & fish.

+4 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from FlyDave wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

I agree with the last two comments. It really isn't a political issue. It's a cultural issue. You're not an environmental "whacko" if you appreciate and want to protect places to hunt and fish. If you support politicians who advocate and vote for Second Amendment rights, you should also ask those politicians to advocate and vote for protecting places to shoot... hunt... and fish. Fiscal responsibility is important. That's really all about doing what's right for future generations. I wouldn't saddle my great grandchildren with a debt that compromises their way of life, and the viability of this great country. But I don't think wrecking wild places is the way to get there... in fact, I think we owe those great grandchildren the wild places too. Don't we?

+7 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from mountaindew732 wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

I have always considered conservation efforts to be one of those "spend a little now" to "save a lot later". If you cut support to these projects and conservation efforts you will see these habitats disappear and hunting dwindle. And once it is gone it will cost a lot a lot more to try and bring it back or start all over again. And where is that money going to come from?
I agree the government spends more than they have all the time..sometimes it is for the good of the economy, sometimes it is a bunch of crap. I agree with you Kirk, we do need to voice our opions on issues like these.
Conservation isn't the only thing people are looking to cut. In pa we may be looking at a 52% cut of state funding for higher education. I received a nice letter from my college the other day saying we may lose 12 million dollars in funding. That is about $2000 per person. This could prevent a lot of people from going to college now. The best way to prevent these things is to let them know we don't want it....and it is a really really stupid idea

+4 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from shane wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

You mean to tell me that Republicans aren't a sportsman's true friend?

Are you really trying to say that they are putting industrial/corporate interests before those of the people and that all this spending cut talk is a load of BS to trick us regular folk into pleasing their incredibly wealthy masters? Say it ain't so!

Where's the NRA on this one?

If you are still getting fooled after this one, well I have no more hope for you.

If they were serious about cutting the budget, they would get serious about cutting the budget.

Conservation money is pennies in the big picture and saves money in the future. But they don't care; they have their image to boost and pay-offs to pay off. Who cares about the later when you can look good and get paid now?

If you're still towing the "we have to take this hit for the country" line, just say "bahh" and eat grass. It's not for us. It's for "their people".

+6 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from wisc14 wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

funny thing is all these politicians who voted for this probably have high rating from the nra. too many people where i am from are fooled by thinking a high nra rating means the politician is pro-hunting/fishing...which is hardly the case

+4 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from shane wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

Meanwhile oil companies are getting payed (with our tax dollars and a bit too much of our pocket dollars) to gouge us. Not to mention they are trying to extend our slump by charging more for the cheaper to make diesel fuel that runs our economy...

+5 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from rock rat wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

Well I went ahead and called my congressman and senators via the web site as Bob suggested.

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

None of them were going to vote for the cuts. One of my senators is a son of that famous interior secretary Mo Udall who doubled the size of the National Parklands amongst other things.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Dave Hurteau wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

I just contacted my congressman and senators, too. Thanks, Bob.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from USCG_Honor_Guard wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

You can't cut yourself into prosperity. The mighty USA needs to find a way to become a relevant player in the world's market again. The question is: do we have elected officials/leaders that can make this happen?

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Bob81 wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

labrador,
As many before me have pointed out, you are exactly right about wanting to minimize the deficit and exactly wrong about how to do it. Conservation funding is a very small rounding error in the overall federal budget. It's miniscule. I guarantee you there are a hundred other places this money could be made up, and places that won't damage hunting and finishing opportunities for the next generation.

Having hunting and fishing opportunities available for my kids someday is a lot more important to me than say, giving Exxon/Monsanto/etc. a corporate subsidy today.

+6 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from bberg7794 wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

Thanks for the great post Bob.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Jnelson64 wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

I myself have been trying to find jobs with the USFWS, but due to budget cuts, they dont have the ability to hire me even at an entry level intern.. By taking away funding to conservation efforts, you end up losing jobs in that field. With less jobs available more people will be on unemployment, which means the government will be spending more money to pay them if they file for it. So would u rather pay someone to not work, or pay someone to protect and develop our resources? I would choose the 2nd.

As my Grandfather has always said the Republicans are for the rich, at this point it appears to be the case. Why do multibillion dollar corporations need more money tossed at them, and then big tax cuts while small businesses suffer trying to make ends meet. Its like giving an over weight person more food and taking that food from a starving homeless person. It really doesnt make sense. either way both parties have their faults but I for one would like my future kin to be able to enjoy the natural resources i did.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from JS76 wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

At the turn of the century a young, Nobel prize winning president faced a financial crisis of historic proportions-- the Dow was cut in half, and unemployment doubled.
That president's name was Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican. Despite this financial challenge he created the Forest Service and set aside more lands for public hunting and fishing than any other president, before or since. Probably the most cost effective investment any president has ever made, because those lands generate BILLION$ every year in gear sold, tags, water quality services, etc.
The Republicans today, and our president today, need to show some real leadership and conserve the very lands beneath our feet-- first and foremost!

+7 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from shane wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

TR must be ashamed of his party today.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from bj264 wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

There are too many government programs that need to be and should be cut. Or should have no government funding such as National Public Radio, Plan Parenthood, receiving gov. money for raising alpacas..... I could go on. The bottom line is our nations parks, wetlands rivers and lakes are owned by the citizens now and of the future. They should be taken care of and protected like the crown jewels of our nation.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from jrok6661 wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

@ JS76. You have it right man. I don't think a lot of people realize that the Republican Party used to be the progressive party. I consider myself socially liberation and fiscally conservative, but no ones is talking about cutting the things that matter. I am proud to be a part of this website, since I see so many people taking action on this issue. We need to hold our representatives accountable for all this. I seen one post about how Exxon paid no taxes last year. This is too often the case. Many of the wealthiest companies and people pay no taxes or less then me. That is not fair and completely against what I think is the American Dream (Equality for All).

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from dogma wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

Hmmm, reminds of the '00 and '04 election season when some of my hunting and sporting groups or clubs said I should vote my sport, hint hint, vote Republican...The next eight years were the worst for public lands in CO, the lands I hunt, in recent memory. We've lost sight of what is really important to us individually, and as a nation.

+4 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from cmrosko wrote 1 year 10 weeks ago

Thank You Bob Marshall and Field & Stream for a much needed and truthful heads up on these important issues.

Please fellow outdoors men & women get and remain active on supporting conservation issues as a top priority. So called progress and unrestrained industry has always made these issues a major concern for those who understand the importance of a rich and healthy ecosystem.

+4 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Oregon Jim wrote 1 year 9 weeks ago

The GOP is behaving disgracefully.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from ndagila wrote 12 weeks 3 days ago

I just have to laugh. Sportsmen are paying for their own demise. Outfits like DU have actually merged with The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Trout Unlimited and Phesant forever are working "In partnership" with TNC. And now F&S has bought into the scam. The Wildlands Project is the brain child of Eco Nazis from EARTH FIRST! They want you out of the woods and seems we are paying to help them get it. Go to rangemagazine.com and look for the articles: NATURES LAND LORDS by Tim Findley. And TAKING LIBERTY by Dr. Michael Coffman. you might want to rethink you various memberships and subscriptions.

-3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Enthusiast	Kiteboarding \| QUAD \| SKI \| Skiing \| Scuba Diving \| Sport Diver \| TransWorld Ride BMX \| TransWorld Business \| TransWorld Motocross \| TransWorld SKATEboarding, \| TransWorld SNOWboarding \| TransWorld SURF \| WakeBoarding \| WaterSki \| Warren Miller Entertainment \| WindSurfing
Travel	Caribbean Travel & Life \| Destination Weddings & Honeymoon \| Islands \| Meeting Traveler \| Resorts & Great Hotels
Lifestyle & Shelter	Florida Travel & Life \| Garden Design \| Home Ft. Lauderdale \| Home Miami
Luxury	SNOW \| Spa
Marine	Boating Life \| Cruising World \| Fly Fishing in Salt Waters \| Power Cruising \| Marlin \| Motor Boating \| Sailing World \| Salt Water Sportsman \| Sport Fishing \| Yachting \| NewBoats.com \| UsedBoats.com \| YachtBroker.com
Outdoor	Field & Stream \| Outdoor Life \| SHOT Business
Parenting	Babytalk \| Parenting
Science	Popular Science \| Science Illustrated
Saveur	Saveur
Working Mother Media	Working Mother
Entertainment / Events	World Entertainment Services \| World Sports & Marketing

Search