Monday, June 25, 2012

Bad news for birds...

"In a move attacked by bird conservation groups as 'one of the most regressive wildlife appropriations' ever, crucial conservation programs were slashed by 50% of FY 2012 funding levels in a funding bill approved by the House Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for Fiscal Year 2013. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) – a major source of funding for conservation programs that benefit migratory birds – was also cut in half."

Link: Keep reading at the American Bird Conservancy

In a press release on the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations website, Chairman Hal Rogers (Republican from Kentucky) said:

"This bill cuts spending on programs by more than a billion dollars, and prevents the EPA and other federal bureaucracies from stepping out of their lane and stifling our economic recovery. At the same time, it funds programs that are necessary and important to the American people, including the maintenance of national parks, wildfire fighting and prevention efforts, and the stewardship of the nation's vast natural resources and federal lands."

I guess birds just aren't that important for Americans who support these particular politicians and their anti-science, anti-environment, and anti-wildlife agenda.

Link: Statement from The Nature Conservancy

Link: Statement from The Grand Canyon Trust

Link: World Wildlife Fund Comments

Link: Press Release from AGC of America

Link: Press Release from NRDC


  1. People ALWAYS come first. Birds are important, as is wildlife, as well as scientific research, but anyone who chooses wildlife over people is an idiot. For the real numbers, none of which look like a slash of 50%, try this table in relation to appropriations for the F&WS.
    You exagerate for petty political reasons. 2013 appropriations enacted actually go up in some areas that relate to birds, specifically. You don't know what you are talking about.

    1. "People?" What a sick joke/neo-con(artist) line you've bought.

      That has been their PR drumbeat for years. For them, according to their policies, "people" refers to only the rich/powerful - in support of their lust for more P$W$R.

      Profit NOW, NOW, NOW. But, maintain the nest we humans must live in - which was the foundation of their wealth in the first place - is meaningless blather to them.

      Interesting you name yourself "Daffy Duck." Your namesake exhibits about as much insight and critical thinking. About as much reality perception as Mallard Filmore...

  2. Hi Mr. Duck,

    May I call you Daffy?

    The 2013 federal budget still has to move through Congress and there will be negotiations in the House, the Senate, and the Administration before it is passed. The numbers coming from the Appropriations Subcommittee are not necessarily final. For example, the $4 million figure dated April 9th, 2012 for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation in the E&E Publishing, LLC chart is unofficial and not been passed, but neither has the more recently proposed $1,893,000 amount in the version of the bill dated June 18th, 2012. The Senate will likely have a modified version of the budget before the President puts his signature on it. If I've done the math right, it looks like the most recent figure from the House Appropriations Subcommittee is around 50% less than the figure shown in E&E's table. I think that's where the American Bird Conservancy is getting its figures from, but I've written them and await their response.

    People do come first, and that's what makes this so frustrating. This is precisely why I'm an ardent environmentalist. Be it fruit, vegetable, or animal, people must consume other living things in order to survive. Agricultural fields are not closed systems; they are exposed to the forces of nature. The amount and quality of our food ultimately depends on the health of the environment. The more habitat we lose or degrade to big industry and corporations, the less there will be in order to maintain healthy wildlife and corresponding ecosystems.

    Without a doubt, in the short term, increased development and commerce will create jobs and help us with our current unemployment woes. But taken to its logical conclusion, if habitats where plant and animal communities thrive are substantially degraded or destroyed, resulting in faltered or collapsed ecosystems, it is an undeniable fact there will be fewer natural resources for people in the long term. The number one cause of declines in wildlife populations is habitat loss and fragmentation by human activity.

    The exploitation race for natural resources has been going on for decades and there are too many people on the planet for us to live sustainably even now. So, to what end, Daffy? At what point will we destroy enough nature that we, ourselves, will begin to become a declining species? Paying to conserve something now is much less expensive than paying for restoration efforts later on. It has got to stop sometime and it will be a lot less expensive to do right by nature (and ourselves in the process) now than try to fix larger and more complex problems down the road. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    When it comes to nature and the environment, today's conservative politicians seem short term oriented and are willing, even eager, to sacrifice our natural resources substantially and carelessly in trade for increased commerce. To my way of thinking this is a self-defeating pattern of human behavior and not an intelligent way to go about things. Honest people can disagree, but we'll see what happens. I hope I'm wrong.

    Mike M.

  3. Some people debate respectfully while others only seem capable of insulting name-calling such as "idiot." Shame on you angry duck.

    To add a few other comments...allowing unfettered commerce isn't necessarily putting people first when you consider the cancers, respiratory illnesses and other unexplained illnesses that creep up when industry is allowed to dump pollutants into our environment. These are real public health and human costs. And this climate change the Republicans deny exists, the effects of global warming are described to include extreme weather variations resulting in drought, forest fires, flooding, more hurricanes, tornadoes etc. Look around at what's going on right now in the U.S. It's happening now, costing human lives and placing a building financial burden on this country. But I suppose as long as corporations are making record profits we're in good shape. Where greed flourishes, people will not, at least not long term. It's all a matter of perspective. The more wholistic your long term view is the easier it is see the inter connectedness and impact of our human actions on ourselves as well as other living entities and realize there will be eventual grave financial costs as well (gotta talk money cause it's mostly about money for the conservative minded).

  4. Mr. Daffy is insipidly moronic!