posted in:

February 10, 2020

President’s Budget Proposes Deep Cuts to Conservation

Sportsmen and women call on Congress to invest in land, water, wildlife, and fisheries

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership’s president and CEO Whit Fosburgh issued the following statement in response to the President’s proposed Fiscal Year 2021 budget:

“With just a few exceptions, this budget falls woefully short when it comes to investing in conservation and our outdoor recreation economy.  As Congress walks through the appropriations process, it’s imperative that lawmakers listen to sportsmen and women and make lasting contributions to the future of land, water, wildlife, and fisheries.”

Now that the President has rolled out his proposed budget, Congress is tasked with passing appropriations bills by September 30, 2020.

40 Responses to “President’s Budget Proposes Deep Cuts to Conservation”

    • Really Doug? You are voting against all of our(Hunters, Anglers, Hikers,Outdoors types) best interests.Don’t mean to get political but I guarantee Teddy wouldn’t back the current occupant of our house. He’d probably whip his butt with the big stick he spoke of.

    • Mike & William… appreciate your perspective but like Doug there is little choice at this point given the range of issues. The Democrats have chosen to float candidates with pretty extreme views that also hurt hunters. Granted it is arguable but to characterize it as a name call and assume voters with different perspectives only feeds the narrative. We need to unite and not fall into the petty narratives of either “side” of the aisle.

  1. Connor O’Malley

    This article is literally a single quote without any context or specifics. Please dive deeper into the who, what, where, whys, and hows. This is purely conjecture and rhetoric.

    You stated that the proposed budget falls short of conservation expectations. How so? Please be specific. You stated that there are a few exceptions. What are they? This is not journalism, it is glossy click bait – plain and simple. I respect TRCP and do not want to see standards fall this low. I came here to learn something. I do not mean to be harsh but I expect better from anything TRCP would stand behind. Thank you for your consideration.

    • Elisa Hirt

      Trump will NEVER see the value of conservation. He has proved that time and time again- especially with the latest disgraceful shrinking of our once protected monuments. If he believes there is money to be made by way of oil, coal or logging (even in protected lands), he will plunder and destroy it. Period. Voting for him is voting AGAINST the the health of the environment and any hopes of conservation. I sincerely hope you reconsider your choice of candidate. Please do some research… his false claims on economy, etc, are proven time and time again. The only thing guaranteed from Trump is the continued destruction of the environment, regardless of what the people want.

  2. Robert Scott Bennett

    I’m a Trump supporter, but I do not support proposed cuts to cutting conservation funds. I agree that we should increase conservation funding, especially for CRP & WRP land.

  3. Amarllis Hazlip

    Mr. President there are places to cut because spending is TOO high but this is NOT one of those places. Our National Parks, preserves and not the places to cut. Please Sir, reconsider this area.

  4. Rusty Stephens

    I hate to see cuts to conservation projects in any form but there needs to be a house cleaning and revamp of BLM. After following closely the protests and death of LaVoy Finnicum, the harassment of the ranchers and videos inside the BLM of them laughing about the assinine things they have done, fires, buildings burned and cattle singed or killed, I would like more responsible and kindly people running the bureau. For them to torch lands surrounding ranches, barns and livestock is horrendous. Government is too large with little oversight in this respect.

  5. Would you expect anything else from a billionaire NYC developer? Environmentalists/conservationists are their arch enemy. Of course he is not on our side. It’s unfortunate there aren’t many good alternatives.

  6. The synergistic relation between land, abundant game, access and healthy budgets for resource programs evades Trump, he doesn’t get-it. How these contribute to our economy, hasn’t resonated with him either. I just support a president like this.

  7. We need to be PRAISING trump and gloating about his “stable genious” regarding his knowledge of conservation. I think he knows more than the conservation experts! And, expertise of managing such! If we get on the right track, then he will support it!!! Its our fault and stupidity for not understanding what he tells us!

  8. Michael Nigl

    Hunters and the NRA used to have a common cause to rally around during elections. In recent years, the radical right has taken the NRA farther and farther away from the Hunter/Conservation issues. Outdoor sportsmen are really divided on the subject of Gun Control, and this division is eroding our lobbying power. If you plan the hunt game with an AR equipped with a 30 round magazine, you’ll have to make a choice what is most important.

  9. Jeanne Artaxet

    Protect our beautiful USA Natural forests, rivers, flowers, hills, mountains, lakes, oceans, beaches, bees, wasps, deer, bear, cougar, snakes, birds, everything is promised to your grandchildren to see, touch, smell,in these United States of the fur, the brave, the ingenious habitants that proudly call this Our United States and proudly call you our President of the Unites States.

  10. Bill Blount

    So unfortunate that folks are fooled by the con man in the White House. I’ve been watching Trump since the 70’s and he’s the same fake he’s always been. His only concern is himself and how he can best make a deal that’s best for him. There is zero concern for conservation in his White House. Stop being fooled and open your eyes.

  11. I get it everyone hates Trump its all his fault, but again what are the proposed budget cuts that this article is based on. I’m all for conservation and support organizations like TRCP but when it becomes political and no factual information is supplied to support your statements it becomes real difficult take anyone seriously.

  12. The article i just read, with zero information on actual “budget statement” is precisely why i have not and will never financially support “TRCP”…
    how about some actual journalism and information that one could start researching the language of budget proposal?? Then contact their representatives in Washington…
    I especially liked your follow up TRUMP HATE COMMENTS.
    thanks for doing your part TRCP in trying to keep the divisive wedge being driven deeper into the USA

  13. This article is a complete joke! It’s only meant to keep the disinformation flowing! The budget starts in the house and moves to the Senate. THEN and only then, does it go to the President’s desk for approval! Count me out for giving the TRCP any funding with this politically motivated drivel!

  14. Gene Hardin

    John Meloncamp was definately talking about Trump supports in one of his songs which goes” the simple minded and uninformed are easily lead astray and those who cannot connect the dots look the other way, people believe what they want to believe when it makes no sence at all…………

  15. Norm Ploss

    Trump & his enablers are not friends of the environment or fish & wildlife. Greatly appreciate TRCP for speaking up. When will DU, TU, FFI & other national outdoors organizations speak out.

  16. The Trump administration along with Andrew Wheeler, EPA, coal lobbyist, David Bernhardt, Interior, oil and gas lobbyist, and William Perry Pendley, BLM, “all public lands should be sold”, have not been supportive of our air, land, water, and wildlife. It is no surprise that the proposed Trump budget fails to adequately support, protect, and defend our air, land, water, and wildlife. In fact his actions and those of his administration are actually making them worse. If you do not believe it, just check for yourself all of the rollbacks and reductions in protections of our air, land, water, and wildlife. We can do better than what is currently happening.

Do you have any thoughts on this post?

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Comments must be under 1000 characters.


posted in:

February 7, 2020

Who Will Protect Our Nation’s Wetlands and Streams Now?

A look back at why EPA’s rollback doesn’t hold water

In January, the administration released its final new rule establishing the reach of the Clean Water Act. If this rule survives court challenges, the landmark federal law protecting our nation’s water from polluting activities will cover fewer waterbodies than at any time since 1972.

The new rule will not safeguard wetlands unless they are adjacent to a river, removing protections for the many wetlands supplied by underground source water, such as the prairie potholes of the upper Midwest, high mountain fens, and the playas of the southern plains. The new rule will also not protect “ephemeral” streams, which flow only after rainstorms.

Photo: USFWS Mountain-Prairie via Flickr
The Backstory

The 1972 Clean Water Act responded to catastrophic pollution in the 1950s and 1960s, like the Cuyahoga River burning and Lake Erie being declared “dead.” The law replaced a 1965 federal statute that had given states the lead in fighting water pollution. While states are closer to problems and know the local value of a waterbody better than a federal agency in Washington, D.C., states simply did not have the resources or political will to stop the powerful interests responsible for the most damaging pollution.

So, Congress imposed a comprehensive framework to clean up America’s waters. The newly created Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers became the first line of defense by policing activities that discharged pollutants to rivers, streams and wetlands, although states were given the option to assume these permit programs if they could demonstrate they had the resources to do so. Meanwhile, states continue to set water quality standards, subject to federal approval, for their rivers, streams, and lakes, while the EPA established nation-wide “technology” standards on an industry-by-industry basis.

Finally, to ensure all parties had incentives to work towards better water quality, Congress appropriated billions of dollars to states for revolving funds to make loans to local governments for the construction of modern wastewater treatment facilities.

Over the decades, this strategy proved spectacularly effective. Our waters are substantially cleaner that in 1970 thanks to the Clean Water Act.

To be sure, every state still has its list of “impaired” waters, most of which are polluted by runoff from agriculture, abandoned mines, or urban development. The law requires states to adopt plans that move these waters towards better quality. Congress provides Section 319 funding to incentivize the implementation of measures that can minimize or eliminate polluted runoff.

Photo: Bryant Olsen via Flickr
Looking Ahead

Why is this history important? EPA and the Corps of Engineers argue that their decision to stop protecting many streams and over half of the country’s remaining wetlands is justified because states can and should have this responsibility. They assert this rationale while acknowledging that states currently have neither the programs nor the funds to protect all these waters, especially without the substantial federal investment of the last 48 years.

The federal agencies claim that if these water resources are truly important, states will pass legislation to create new programs and impose the new taxes or fees needed to support them, so that they protect their no-longer federally protected waters and wetlands. And if states don’t, then too bad.

“Too bad” is not responsible clean water policy. Congress acted in 1972 for a reason.

The EPA’s rollback gives the nation a choice: do we really want to lose the clean water gains of the last half century, standing by as activities pollute or destroy the wetlands that support the country’s waterfowl, the headwaters streams that nurture our trout and salmon, and the desert washes that sustain entire communities?

If not, hunters, anglers, and everyone who values these precious water resources will need to organize a massive grassroots campaign. Either we must convince Congress to clarify that the Clean Water Act is intended to protect these water resources or—if Congress refuses to act—we must work to ensure all 50 states have the resources and political will to take over this awesome responsibility.

Failure can simply not be an option.


Top photo: BLM Oregon via Flickr


posted in:

February 6, 2020

A CLEAR Solution to Nutrient Loading

This Farm Bill-funded program boosts habitat and addresses a watershed-wide problem 

The 2019 planting year was historic—but unfortunately not in the way that many American farmers would like to remember. Unseasonably wet conditions prevented planting on nearly 20 million acres of corn, soybean, and wheat crops, among others, doubling the previous record of 9.6 million acres in 2011. The yearly average is typically between 3-4 million acres.     

Last spring’s deluge caused at least $3 billion in damages to the heartland and brought shipping on the Mississippi to a halt.  The resulting erosion, sediment loss and nutrient runoff carried ecological impacts stretching across thousands of miles. As rain continued to fall in the Missouri and Mississippi River basinsrising waters eroded soils and washed downstream millions of tons of nutrient fertilizer and organic matter from agriculturally productive land. Locally, the depletion of these substances results in reduced crop yields, and when this material reaches the ocean it can be devastating to marine health. 

But thanks to the Farm Bill, there’s a new initiative that will aid in addressing this challenge while both improving water quality and establishing healthy habitat for the birds and game animals that hunters love to chase. 

A Growing Problem

Each year, nutrient runoff in the midwestern United States flows downstream and eventually into the Gulf of Mexico. The sudden but predictable heightened levels of nitrates and phosphorus result in algae blooms which then decompose and deoxygenate the water tablekilling phytoplankton and fish at the base of the aquatic food-chain. The Gulf of Mexico hypoxia or “dead zone is not the only one in the United States, but it is one of the largest recurring in the world. In 2019, the Gulf dead zone covered 6,952 square miles off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas—the eighth largest on record. Each year, the dead zone dissipates as air and water temperatures drop but swells again in spring.  

The Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force (HTF) is comprised of tribal, state and federal officials that coordinate nutrient reduction efforts from both point (wastewater) and non-point (agricultural) sources up and down the Mississippi River basin. The task force is working towards an ambitious goal of reducing the average size of the Gulf dead zone to 1,800 square miles by the year 2035. A problem of such significant scope does not offer a silver bullet solution, and meeting reduction targets requires a full state and federal toolkit. 

A CLEAR Solution

One key mechanism to address non-point source nutrient loading was codified in the 2018 Farm Bill. The Clean Lakes, Estuaries and Rivers (CLEAR) initiative builds on the existing continuousConservation Reserve Program (CRP) to target nutrient and sediment runoff and improve the water quality benefits of existing conservation practices. The CRP incentivizes landowners to retire marginal cropland for a period of 10-15 years and establish vegetative covers that offer a benefit to soil, water, and wildlife habitat—premium for deer, upland bird, and waterfowl hunting. The 2018 bill further required that 40% of continuous-CRP acreage be enrolled via CLEAR, and in order to track the long-term benefit of such practices established a pilot program (CLEAR 30) offering 30-year CLEAR contracts.

Former USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack oversaw the creation of CLEAR by the USDA in 2016. According to Vilsack, the installation of CLEAR practices such as duck nesting habitat, riparian buffers, contour grasses, and prairie strips can reduce nitrate runoff by up to 40% more than traditional conservation practices. Since its establishment in 1985, the CRP has grown to be one of the USDA’s most powerful tools in curbing nutrient lossreducing nitrogen and phosphorus runoff by a combined 650 million pounds in Fiscal Year 2014 alone. CLEAR has potential to demonstrably increase that benefit. 

As the USDA Farm Service Agency moves ahead with implementing the 2018 bill, the TRCP and our partner organizations are actively engaged in providing feedback to ensure that programs like CLEAR are implemented to achieve the greatest benefit to wildlife. The sum of these efforts will be critical in addressing some of our greatest conservation challenges like the Gulf’s dead zone.   

For more information on the Conservation Reserve Program, visit crpworks.org.


Top photo: Jeff Weese via Flickr


posted in:

February 5, 2020

U.S. House Passes Bill to Continue Historic Chesapeake Bay Restoration

Support for this legislation is a critical step forward for hunters and anglers in America’s largest estuary

The U.S. House of Representatives today passed legislation that preserves the economic and recreational value of the Chesapeake Bay.

The bipartisan Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization Act (H.R. 1620) fully funds the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program by authorizing $455 million over the next five years. This program hasn’t been formally authorized since 2005, so this legislation will provide much-needed certainty to state, federal, and nonprofit partners working to restore the water quality of the Bay and its tributaries.

“The Chesapeake Bay is the iconic home to incredible fisheries, migrating waterfowl, and powerful economic opportunity, and some of the best hunting and fishing around,” said Steve Kline, chief policy officer of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “Sportsmen and women want to thank Congresswoman Elaine Luria and the cosponsors of this legislation for their work ensuring that Bay watershed states can keep working together to brighten the future of the Chesapeake.”

The Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization Act is also part of the America’s Conservation Enhancement Act (ACE Act) which was passed by the Senate unanimously in January.  In addition to the Bay provisions, the ACE Act includes a host of fish and wildlife conservation priorities and House floor passage of the ACE Act represents the clearest way for these key legislative efforts to get to the President’s desk. We urge the House to pass the ACE Act, which also:

  • Reauthorizes the North American Wetlands Conservation Act at $60 million annually through Fiscal Year 2025. The Act has improved over 30 million acres of wetlands, making it one of the nation’s most effective voluntary conservation programs.
  • Establishes a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service-led task force to address the spread of chronic wasting disease.
  • Codifies the National Fish Habitat Partnership. Since 2006, the Partnership has overseen over 840 projects to benefit fish habitat and populations.


posted in:

January 31, 2020

Sea Grass is the Key

An effort by the Angler Action Foundation and the state of Florida to restore essential fish habitat in southwest Florida will pay dividends for the health of its coast and the Everglades

Every coastal angler worth his or her salt is familiar with the importance of sea grass beds. Sea grass meadows are great places to target species like speckled sea trout from spring through fall. Up to 70% of the species desired by anglers, including tarpon, grouper, redfish, and many more, spend some part of their life cycle in this habitat.

It is estimated that healthy sea grass beds contribute more than $20 billion a year to the Florida economy by providing habitat for commercial and sport fisheries, reducing erosion and impacts of storm events, while also sequestering carbon at a rate of 1,200 lbs/year. By any measure, healthy sea grass meadows play an critical ecological and economic role in Florida and around the world. No surprise then, that the significant loss of sea grass beds in coastal Florida has been a serious concern for many.

The Caloosahatchee Estuary on Florida’s southwest coast has suffered from poor water quality.  In addition, increased salinity levels followed by rapid fluctuations in salinity over sustained periods resulted in the loss of up to 1,200 acres of sea grass beds.  Major losses occurred some 15 years ago from which the sea grass has been unable to recover on its own.

An ambitious project began in 2018 under the direction of the Angler Action Foundation. AAF’s mission is to improve angler access, fisheries science, and marine habitat through collaborative research, education, and conservation programs. Funding for the first phase of the work was provided by Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection, and the leadership of State Senator Kathleen Passidomo and State Representative Heather Fitzenhagen were key to seeing the project receive the necessary support.

Restoration specialists at Sea and Shoreline based in Ruskin, Florida, have led the effort and a third-party ecological assessment of the project is being managed by Johnson Engineering in Fort Meyers and Florida Gulf Coast University.

In late 2018, approximately 20 acres of tape grass and widgeon grass were planted in areas that had been decimated by excessive freshwater releases from Lake Okeechobee. Widgeon grass was selected for its ability to pioneer new habitat and tolerate a wide range of salinity.  Tape grass, also known as eelgrass or wild celery, is more tolerant of freshwater than other grasses. Planting these two species will provide some insurance that sea grass beds will establish themselves and remain intact under widely varying salinity levels.

Sea grass plantings were protected by wire-mesh exclosures to protect them form turtles and manatees, thus allowing the plants to take root. Initial surveys indicate very high survival rate, with up to 95% of the plantings thriving and producing seeds and rhizomes that will disperse and hopefully establish themselves in adjacent areas, resulting in a self sustaining sea grass meadow.

Future plans are to expand the footprint of the planted areas and continue to monitor the project’s progress. It is hoped the same methods can be used in other parts of Florida such as the Indian River Lagoon, which has also suffered devastating losses of sea grass habitat.

All in all, the Caloosahatchee planting project promises to reverse one of the more serious threats to Florida’s coastal health and is a key part of restoring the Everglades. Anglers should be encouraged that returning sea grass meadows will ensure that sea trout, tarpon, and redfish populations remain strong for future generations of sportsmen and women.


All photos courtesy of Sea and Shoreline



Theodore Roosevelt’s experiences hunting and fishing certainly fueled his passion for conservation, but it seems that a passion for coffee may have powered his mornings. In fact, Roosevelt’s son once said that his father’s coffee cup was “more in the nature of a bathtub.” TRCP has partnered with Afuera Coffee Co. to bring together his two loves: a strong morning brew and a dedication to conservation. With your purchase, you’ll not only enjoy waking up to the rich aroma of this bolder roast—you’ll be supporting the important work of preserving hunting and fishing opportunities for all.

$4 from each bag is donated to the TRCP, to help continue their efforts of safeguarding critical habitats, productive hunting grounds, and favorite fishing holes for future generations.

Learn More

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You have Successfully Subscribed!