$685 Million to be Cut from Federal Wildlife and Public Lands Funds

[bigtex]

$685 Million to be Cut from Federal Wildlife and Public Lands Funds
by John Haughey


Barring a last-minute agreement, $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts will be automatically "sequestered" from the federal 2013 fiscal year budget on March 1. Over the next decade, $1.2 trillion in federal spending—an average of $109 billion annually—will be trimmed in similar "sequestrations."
   
If the budget cuts go into effect, on March 1 all federal agencies must comply with a directive to cut "all non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding" by a uniform 8.2 percent, meaning it will affect nearly every function of wildlife and public lands management, including greater risk of wildfires, less poaching enforcement, slower gun background checks and drastically reduced capacity to enforce environmental regulations.
   
More than $685 million in 2013 federal allocations designated for wildlife management and public lands access will be "sequestered," or withheld from distribution, if the budget cuts are enacted.
   
"These cuts will have a dramatic impact on conservation programs cherished by America's hunters and anglers as well as all those who enjoy access to our rich natural resources," the National Wildlife Federation warns. "At stake are the decades of progress our country has made to preserve the health and safety of our water, air, land, and environment and to create the clean energy jobs vital to the future of our economy."
   
According to the National Resources Defense Council, if the cuts are enacted, outdoorsmen will see trail closures, poor maintenance of forest roads, unprocessed recreational permits, shortened seasons, shuttered campgrounds and off-limits recreational areas in 398 national parks, on more than 193 million acres of national forest land, and on more than 260 other federal public land areas.
   
Among potential casualties: The National Wildlife Refuge System could lose 200 jobs and see its law enforcement budget cut by 15 percent. As a result, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar warns that 128 of the nation's 561 wildlife refuges would need to be closed.
   
Below is a brief outline of the $685 million to be cut from federal wildlife and public lands management programs:
 
WILDLIFE
 
- Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program (Pittman-Robinson Act), which provides federal funds to states for wildlife management and restoration, would be cut by $31 million; the Sportfish Recreation program would be cut by $34 million; and the Boating Safety Trust Fund cut by $9 million.
   
- All three of these funds are raised through excise taxes on hunting, fishing, and boating equipment and fuel do not go into the general treasury. While the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) collects these taxes from manufacturers, they are required by law to distribute them to the states for wildlife and habitat management.
 
- The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: The service, which provides hunting and fishing opportunities by financing wildlife and habitat enhancement and managing national wildlife refuges, will see its 2013 budget cut by $105 million. This money will come from law enforcement, refuge maintenance, habitat conservation, and national fish-hatchery operations.

- Grant programs: The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program, which provides funding to prevent wildlife from becoming endangered, will be cut by about $5 million.
 
PUBLIC LANDS
 
- National parks: The National Park Service will have to trim $218 million from its 2013 budget, according to the Office of Management and Budget. This money will come from the service's operations budget, which funds protection of resources, law enforcement and park rangers, visitor services like education and interpretation, and maintenance such as trail construction and campgrounds in 398 national parks.
 
"Park ranger jobs would be on the chopping block," writes Russell McLendon of the Mother Nature Network on Forbes.com, noting the Natural Resources Defense Council warns “monitoring of endangered species and other scientific work would likely be delayed or dropped.”
 
- Wildlife Refuges: The National Wildlife Refuge System could lose 200 jobs and see its law enforcement budget cut by 15 percent. As a result, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar warns that 128 of the nation's 561 wildlife refuges would need to be closed.
 
- National forests: The Forest Service's 2013 budget could be cut by $175 million, impairing access to recreational opportunities and management of natural resources on the 193 million acres it manages.
   
According to the OMB, the service's operations budget would be slashed by $129 million, trimming money for forest restoration and habitat management. The service's “Forest and Rangeland Research” budget would be cut by $24 million, and its “State and Private Forestry” account, which provides funds for open space conservation and new protected areas, would be cut by $21 million.

- Public lands: The Bureau of Land Management, which manages 256 million acres of public lands mostly open to sportsmen, will see its 2013 budget cut by $85 million. Most of the money will come from the agency's operations budget, which includes nearly all of its funds to manage wildlife and fisheries, wilderness, and other recreation resources.

- Conservation lands: The Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has provided funding for countless National Parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands, will be cut by about $20 million, almost certainly delaying or halting crucial conservation projects.
 
- Wetlands restoration: The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, which provides federal grants to restore wetlands for fish and wildlife, would be cut by $3 million.
 
WHY IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE
 
The Natural Resource Defense Council maintains that further slashing already stressed conservation budgets doesn't make economic sense. The NRDC maintains that just 1.4 percent of all federal spending is dedicated to wildlife and land-use management and conservation. The National Park Service's budget is 1/14th of 1 percent of the national budget, while all federal expenditures that relate to oceans and coasts make up less than 0.5 percent, the NRDC says.
   
The National Wildlife Federation notes the sequester will be just the latest in a series of budget cuts, noting conservation programs were trimmed by more than 30 percent in the 2012 budget, even though "in 2011 alone, 90 million Americans (38 percent of the U.S. population age 16 and older) spent $145 billion -- 1 percent of GDP -- on wildlife-related recreation."
   
According to the NRDC, more than 300 million people visit U.S. national parks every year, supporting 258,000 jobs and $31 billion in economic activity. Also, the NRDC says, another 45 million people visit national wildlife refuges, generating $4.2 billion and sustaining 35,000 jobs.   
   
"There is little doubt that cuts would impact the hunting and fishing experience that Americans currently enjoy," write Jessica Goad, Michael Conathan, and Christy Goldfuss on americanprogress.org. "And cuts of this magnitude could potentially lead to a decline in the quality of wildlife habitat, fewer places that are protected for their hunting and fishing values, less law enforcement, poorly maintained hiking trails, deterioration of visitor facilities, fewer education programs, unprocessed hunting and access permits, and the basic disintegration of visitor experiences overall -- all of which means less revenue."

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2013/02/685-million-be-cut-federal-wildlife-public-lands-funds

[Mudman]

Sucks ya but I have no problem with cutting funds.  We need more than this!  Of course this huge Gov. monster will cutback.  Its needed and they will punish us first before themselves.  Every dollar spent is 40cents borrowed!!!  Crazy!  Cut more!

[Ridgeratt]

$685 Million to be Cut from Federal Wildlife and Public Lands Funds
by John Haughey


Barring a last-minute agreement, $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts will be automatically "sequestered" from the federal 2013 fiscal year budget on March 1. Over the next decade, $1.2 trillion in federal spending—an average of $109 billion annually—will be trimmed in similar "sequestrations."
   
If the budget cuts go into effect, on March 1 all federal agencies must comply with a directive to cut "all non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding" by a uniform 8.2 percent, meaning it will affect nearly every function of wildlife and public lands management, including greater risk of wildfires, less poaching enforcement, slower gun background checks and drastically reduced capacity to enforce environmental regulations.
   
More than $685 million in 2013 federal allocations designated for wildlife management and public lands access will be "sequestered," or withheld from distribution, if the budget cuts are enacted.
   
"These cuts will have a dramatic impact on conservation programs cherished by America's hunters and anglers as well as all those who enjoy access to our rich natural resources," the National Wildlife Federation warns. "At stake are the decades of progress our country has made to preserve the health and safety of our water, air, land, and environment and to create the clean energy jobs vital to the future of our economy."
   
According to the National Resources Defense Council, if the cuts are enacted, outdoorsmen will see trail closures, poor maintenance of forest roads, unprocessed recreational permits, shortened seasons, shuttered campgrounds and off-limits recreational areas in 398 national parks, on more than 193 million acres of national forest land, and on more than 260 other federal public land areas.
   
Among potential casualties: The National Wildlife Refuge System could lose 200 jobs and see its law enforcement budget cut by 15 percent. As a result, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar warns that 128 of the nation's 561 wildlife refuges would need to be closed.
   
Below is a brief outline of the $685 million to be cut from federal wildlife and public lands management programs:
 
WILDLIFE
 
- Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program (Pittman-Robinson Act), which provides federal funds to states for wildlife management and restoration, would be cut by $31 million; the Sportfish Recreation program would be cut by $34 million; and the Boating Safety Trust Fund cut by $9 million.
   
- All three of these funds are raised through excise taxes on hunting, fishing, and boating equipment and fuel do not go into the general treasury. While the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) collects these taxes from manufacturers, they are required by law to distribute them to the states for wildlife and habitat management.
 
- The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: The service, which provides hunting and fishing opportunities by financing wildlife and habitat enhancement and managing national wildlife refuges, will see its 2013 budget cut by $105 million. This money will come from law enforcement, refuge maintenance, habitat conservation, and national fish-hatchery operations.

- Grant programs: The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program, which provides funding to prevent wildlife from becoming endangered, will be cut by about $5 million.
PUBLIC LANDS
 
- National parks: The National Park Service will have to trim $218 million from its 2013 budget, according to the Office of Management and Budget. This money will come from the service's operations budget, which funds protection of resources, law enforcement and park rangers, visitor services like education and interpretation, and maintenance such as trail construction and campgrounds in 398 national parks.
 
"Park ranger jobs would be on the chopping block," writes Russell McLendon of the Mother Nature Network on Forbes.com, noting the Natural Resources Defense Council warns “monitoring of endangered species and other scientific work would likely be delayed or dropped.”
 
- Wildlife Refuges: The National Wildlife Refuge System could lose 200 jobs and see its law enforcement budget cut by 15 percent. As a result, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar warns that 128 of the nation's 561 wildlife refuges would need to be closed.
 
- National forests: The Forest Service's 2013 budget could be cut by $175 million, impairing access to recreational opportunities and management of natural resources on the 193 million acres it manages.
   
According to the OMB, the service's operations budget would be slashed by $129 million, trimming money for forest restoration and habitat management. The service's “Forest and Rangeland Research” budget would be cut by $24 million, and its “State and Private Forestry” account, which provides funds for open space conservation and new protected areas, would be cut by $21 million.

- Public lands: The Bureau of Land Management, which manages 256 million acres of public lands mostly open to sportsmen, will see its 2013 budget cut by $85 million. Most of the money will come from the agency's operations budget, which includes nearly all of its funds to manage wildlife and fisheries, wilderness, and other recreation resources.

- Conservation lands: The Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has provided funding for countless National Parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands, will be cut by about $20 million, almost certainly delaying or halting crucial conservation projects.
 
- Wetlands restoration: The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, which provides federal grants to restore wetlands for fish and wildlife, would be cut by $3 million.
 
WHY IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE
 
The Natural Resource Defense Council maintains that further slashing already stressed conservation budgets doesn't make economic sense. The NRDC maintains that just 1.4 percent of all federal spending is dedicated to wildlife and land-use management and conservation. The National Park Service's budget is 1/14th of 1 percent of the national budget, while all federal expenditures that relate to oceans and coasts make up less than 0.5 percent, the NRDC says.
   
The National Wildlife Federation notes the sequester will be just the latest in a series of budget cuts, noting conservation programs were trimmed by more than 30 percent in the 2012 budget, even though "in 2011 alone, 90 million Americans (38 percent of the U.S. population age 16 and older) spent $145 billion -- 1 percent of GDP -- on wildlife-related recreation."
   
According to the NRDC, more than 300 million people visit U.S. national parks every year, supporting 258,000 jobs and $31 billion in economic activity. Also, the NRDC says, another 45 million people visit national wildlife refuges, generating $4.2 billion and sustaining 35,000 jobs.   
   
"There is little doubt that cuts would impact the hunting and fishing experience that Americans currently enjoy," write Jessica Goad, Michael Conathan, and Christy Goldfuss on americanprogress.org. "And cuts of this magnitude could potentially lead to a decline in the quality of wildlife habitat, fewer places that are protected for their hunting and fishing values, less law enforcement, poorly maintained hiking trails, deterioration of visitor facilities, fewer education programs, unprocessed hunting and access permits, and the basic disintegration of visitor experiences overall -- all of which means less revenue."

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2013/02/685-million-be-cut-federal-wildlife-public-lands-funds

If these funds are from the sale of recreational items and they aren't going into the General fund they should remain untouched and still used to enhance the wildlife!!

Next thing is they will siphon off money for there retirements!!

[Mudman]

Of course they will take it out on us and try not to harm themselves.  Fine, I will take my lumps but they are next!  Corrupt sons of - well you get my point.  Bring it!  CUT CUT CUT!  Our Countrys future depends on it.

[bearpaw]

They shouldn't be able to touch Pittman/Robertson or Dingle/Johnson funds, aren't those are designated funds from sporting goods taxes?

We must balance the budget, to do that there must be cuts in spending. If it's general fund money, it should be cut across the board, not just these programs. Take 10% off all federal spending programs. 

[Ridgeratt]

Would be interesting to see after they make these cut's just how long after they vote themselves a raise!!

If any cut's should be taken they should stomach the 8% cut!! 

[bearpaw]

Would be interesting to see after they make these cut's just how long after they vote themselves a raise!!

If any cut's should be taken they should stomach the 8% cut!!

I doubt we see any voluntary pay cuts in congress or the whitehouse. 

[Ridgeratt]

Didn't say it was a Good Idea!!! Just an Idea/Suggestion.

[Knocker of rocks]

They shouldn't be able to touch Pittman/Robertson or Dingle/Johnson funds, aren't those are designated funds from sporting goods taxes?

We must balance the budget, to do that there must be cuts in spending. If it's general fund money, it should be cut across the board, not just these programs. Take 10% off all federal spending programs. 

They want to punish us in what they close.  I think most households could weather a 5 or 8 or 10% decrease in net funds.  May be very rough for some houses, but could generally be done.

The government should be able to do this too, but they want to make us feel the pain.

[Mudman]

We know they do whatever they want.  Rules?  Morals?  Not in congress or whitehouse.

[Ridgeratt]

Just a side note:

Does anyone have an idea of the amount of funds raised by the Pittman-Robertson act over the last couple of months since the the gun band talks started!!

[bearpaw]

Just a side note:

Does anyone have an idea of the amount of funds raised by the Pittman-Robertson act over the last couple of months since the the gun band talks started!!

WOW, good point... 

[Ridgeratt]

I'm occasionally something more than an antagonist!!   

[bigtex]

From what I have heard the only federal land management agency money that won't be touched are those raised from fees to enter/be on federal lands. So things like national park entry passess, NW forest pass, etc. Those will not be cut, however what will be cut is the methods to obtain those funds (staffers working at ranger stations, visitor centers, etc.)

[bearpaw]

From what I have heard the only federal land management agency money that won't be touched are those raised from fees to enter/be on federal lands. So things like national park entry passess, NW forest pass, etc. Those will not be cut, however what will be cut is the methods to obtain those funds (staffers working at ranger stations, visitor centers, etc.)

Bigtex, admittedly I don't understand this whole sequest or whatever its called. But how can they cut designated funds from sporting goods sales that are taxed for that purpose? 

[bear]

Sucks ya but I have no problem with cutting funds.  We need more than this!  Of course this huge Gov. monster will cutback.  Its needed and they will punish us first before themselves.  Every dollar spent is 40cents borrowed!!!  Crazy!  Cut more!

Cut. Cut. Cut!

[Ridgeratt]

From what I have heard the only federal land management agency money that won't be touched are those raised from fees to enter/be on federal lands. So things like national park entry passes, NW forest pass, etc. Those will not be cut, however what will be cut is the methods to obtain those funds (staffers working at ranger stations, visitor centers, etc.)

Bigtex, admittedly I don't understand this whole sequest or whatever its called. But how can they cut designated funds from sporting goods sales that are taxed for that purpose? 

My guess is Legally They can't.
But since there is more than likely now one big enough to take them to the wall they will just Ramrod it.

[Bob33]

Just a side note:

Does anyone have an idea of the amount of funds raised by the Pittman-Robertson act over the last couple of months since the the gun band talks started!!

More than sequesting will take away from what I've heard.

[bigtex]

From what I have heard the only federal land management agency money that won't be touched are those raised from fees to enter/be on federal lands. So things like national park entry passess, NW forest pass, etc. Those will not be cut, however what will be cut is the methods to obtain those funds (staffers working at ranger stations, visitor centers, etc.)

Bigtex, admittedly I don't understand this whole sequest or whatever its called. But how can they cut designated funds from sporting goods sales that are taxed for that purpose? 

My guess is they simply won't dispurse the money to the states.

[Ridgeratt]

2.8 billion NCIS checks just in December. What does that number equate to?

Not sure if they were all 100.00 purchases!! but even at 8.2% that's a pretty good chunk of change!!
That's not counting all the accessories that were also purchased!!

Well the funds that are siphoned off will buy several rounds of golf with Tiger!!
Does anyone know if he can play the fiddle?

[Bob33]

I forwarded these to several of my friends back in October.

http://www.nssf.org/bulletpoints/view.cfm?Iyr=2012&Bissue=102212.htm

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/features/226642



Wildlife Conservation Funds
Could Be Raided to Reduce Deficit

 
BREACH OF TRUST WITH AMERICA'S SPORTSMEN . . . One more negative outcome of the inability of Congress and the Obama administration to reach an agreement on reducing the federal deficit may be the siphoning off of millions of dollars from wildlife conservation funding provided by the 10-11 percent tax paid on new firearms and ammunition under the 75-year-old Pittman-Robertson Act. This eventuality is brought to you courtesy of the so-called budget sequestration measure that forces a $1.2 trillion cut in federal spending should Congress fail to enact a deficit-reduction plan. Because no such agreement is yet in view, draconian mandated across-the-board budget cuts, sometimes referred to as "the fiscal cliff," are what awaits the nation starting early in 2013. Granted, there are larger economic issues posed by our burgeoning national debt and the inability of our elected leaders to reach a comprehensive agreement on taxing and spending, but any funds taken from what is supposed to be a dedicated trust fund to benefit wildlife conservation still constitutes a breach of trust with America's sportsmen and reneges on a promise first made during the height of the Great Depression. Hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts should call their U.S. representatives and senators at 202-224-3121 and tell them to safeguard Pittman-Robertson funds for their historic conservation purposes.

[KopperBuck]

Crap. Following up on this.

[huntnphool]

Don't panic guys, none of this is going to be cut.

[wt]

Maybe some increased timber harvest on NF land could offset some personnel cuts for the FS. They could start in the Solduc . 

[deerslyr]

Of course they will take it out on us and try not to harm themselves.  Fine, I will take my lumps but they are next!  Corrupt sons of - well you get my point.  Bring it!  CUT CUT CUT!  Our Countrys future depends on it.

 

Maybe some increased timber harvest on NF land could offset some personnel cuts for the FS. They could start in the Solduc . 

 

[xd2005]

Maybe they can give us our museum at Pearson Airfield back now that they won't have money

[thatkidwho]

I've never seen an actual reduction of current spending, only reductions in increased spending.

Are these cuts actual cuts in spending or cuts in increased spending?
 

[Bob33]

I've never seen an actual reduction of current spending, only reductions in increased spending.

Are these cuts actual cuts in spending or cuts in increased spending?

Actual cuts in spending.

[Wacenturion]

It's a reduction in the planned increase in federal spending.  Scare tactics and smoke and mirrors.  Just like state government or any government for that matter, who throw cuts on the table they know will  be unpopular with the public.  Shut hatcheries, close game farms, close parks and camping.  It's all just a way for government to scare people into thinking they have to rally and force the opposition to go along with increased taxes and spending.

Enough is enough.  Go ahead and cut and we'll see how long the public leaves your sorry a***s in power.  How about fraud and waste.  Want to try starting there for a change?  That in itself would help correct the deficit quickly.  But that's just chump change to these morons...why bother.

I just hope the Republicans let O own his own sequestration.  Tried of this blame game and he pointing the finger at everyone except himself.  You own it, now deal with it.  Something has to stop this madness. 

[Wacenturion]

PR and DJ funds are dedicated.  Don't quite understand where they get off thinking they can manipulate those fund sources other than if tax revenues from sales are down, then so would be the allocation of those funds to respective states, or vise versa.

[Humptulips]

What do you bet all these horrible cuts will take place and for the most part you won't even notice it?

[Mudman]

Thats kinda what Ive been wondering?

[huntnphool]

I've never seen an actual reduction of current spending, only reductions in increased spending.

Are these cuts actual cuts in spending or cuts in increased spending?

Actual cuts in spending.

Thats not true, they are proposed cuts in increased spending over the next five years.

Its all fear mongering and it was Obama's idea from the get go.

[bigtex]

PR and DJ funds are dedicated.  Don't quite understand where they get off thinking they can manipulate those fund sources other than if tax revenues from sales are down, then so would be the allocation of those funds to respective states, or vise versa.

Don't think politicans can write a law diverting funds?

Remember the 2 years when NOVA funds (ATV/ORV) were used to fund state parks. NOVA funds were "dedicated" to ATV/ORV funding....

[bigtex]

I've never seen an actual reduction of current spending, only reductions in increased spending.

Are these cuts actual cuts in spending or cuts in increased spending?

Actual cuts in spending.

Thats not true, they are proposed cuts in increased spending over the next five years.

Its all fear mongering and it was Obama's idea from the get go.

Thats false.

Then why would many federal employees already be getting furlough notices?? If your statement were true then only new positions would be eliminated/stopped. Not currently funded positions as are already being impacted.

[huntnphool]

I've never seen an actual reduction of current spending, only reductions in increased spending.

Are these cuts actual cuts in spending or cuts in increased spending?

Actual cuts in spending.

Thats not true, they are proposed cuts in increased spending over the next five years.

Its all fear mongering and it was Obama's idea from the get go.

Thats false.

Then why would many federal employees already be getting furlough notices?? If your statement were true then only new positions would be eliminated/stopped. Not currently funded positions as are already being impacted.

Better do a little more research Tex.

[fireweed]

I'm sorry, but having worked at both a National Park and at a Forest Service, I have no pitty on cutting especially for the Nat. Park Service.  They claim they have to "close" land because there are not enough law enforcement (aka babysitters).  When I was in back country the NPS had to have rangers stationed at certain lakes and areas 24-7 to monitor permits.  All the while, the USFS with similar lakes next door maybe cleaned the trail once every few years.  Much less money spent, same recreation.  USFish and Wildlife is even worse with their micormanagment of recreation.  I'd just hand all that over to the states.

[Knocker of rocks]

Then why would many federal employees already be getting furlough notices?? If your statement were true then only new positions would be eliminated/stopped. Not currently funded positions as are already being impacted.

To further the fear?

[pianoman9701]

Pittman Robertson Funds can only be used for conservation and hunter education. Those funds can't be thrown in the general fund by law.

I have no problem with across-the-board cuts. We need more of them by about 5 or 6 times the present cuts.

[bigtex]

Pittman Robertson Funds can only be used for conservation and hunter education. Those funds can't be thrown in the general fund by law.

Congress can temporarily divert funds anytime. Happens in WA all the time. Congress can also delay dispursing the funds.

[Mudman]

They do wharever the H___  they want!  Why cant people see that? Make up a reason or law and off they go!  "Those funds cant be thrown in general fund."  I know its not right but they dont follow their laws.  Feds dont even have a budget yet in congress!  Corruption at a high Chicago level.

[dreamingbig]

We need to stop spending money that we don't have.  We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.  We also spend money on things that are unnecessary.

[wackmaster]

At least we have the discover pass