Trump's budget would clip bird banding. Hunters are not happy.
The trophy may not last. The lab falls under the US Geological Survey's Ecosystem Mission Area, the agency's major ecology program, which under President Trump's 2026 proposed budget. would see funding reduced to $29 million from $293 million. Many hunters are unhappy at the prospect.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'I just hate the thought of losing that,' said Eric Patterson, a duck hunter based in Alabama. 'It is an extreme measure to take.'
Mark Lindberg, a wildlife biologist who worked for the University of Alaska Fairbanks for 20 years, said that the cuts would have a lasting effect. 'We're going to go from being the most refined waterfowl harvest management system in the world — no comparison — to one of the least informed,' he said. Lindberg is also a hunter.
Each band reported by hunters is essential for detecting changes in waterfowl populations and for setting hunting regulations. In its contribution to waterfowl management, the Bird Banding Laboratory 'has given us something that is the envy of the world,' said Ramsey Russell, a duck hunter in Mississippi.
Advertisement
Capturing and handling live birds is prohibited by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, so the lab is also responsible for issuing permits to researchers and bird banders in the United States. The lab has a field station in Patuxent Research Refuge in Maryland, and maintains a database of the millions of bands that have been placed on birds for more than a century, including how many times scientists and hunters have encountered an individual bird.
'Reporting of bird banding from hunters is one of the best citizen science programs that is out there,' said Brad Bortner, a retired wildlife biologist who worked for the US Fish and Wildlife Service for 30 years and was its chief of migratory bird management.
Bird banding aids the management of bird species. When researchers place a band on a bird's leg, they also record information, including the animal's sex and age, and even measurements like weight or data drawn from tissue and blood samples. The data helps scientists track and understand a species' movements, habitat preferences, population growth, and more.
In turn, whenever a hunter, biologist, or other finders recover a band, they report it to the Bird Banding Lab, and that information is used to calculate the survival rate of the species. That data, along with surveys and hunting information from the previous year, informs the harvest management for ducks.
'We're not just killers,' Creasey said. 'We genuinely care about the resource and want it to thrive.'
Advertisement
The mathematical models behind duck regulations require that bands be placed on these animals every year, to guide the harvesting figures. 'If you skip it, you basically have no data out there,' Bortner said. 'And it causes real complications.'
Hunters treasure the bands they find, often placing them on lanyards and wearing them around the neck. Truck windows have been smashed to steal bird band lanyards. 'They do have a very intrinsic value, just personal value, to hunters, which is why the citizen science model works,' Russell said.
Typically, when hunters report a band, they receive a certificate with information about the specific bird killed. A band can reveal the complex narrative of a bird's migratory journey. Many hunters 'get a kick out of seeing where the bird came from,' Patterson said.
Many birds migrate between Canada and South America every year. To coordinate all of the data, the Bird Banding Laboratory works with the Bird Banding Office in Canada — which could be crippled if the American lab is defunded, said Chris Nicolai, a waterfowl scientist at Delta Waterfowl, a duck conservation nonprofit.
Nicolai noted that a significant portion of band data is collected, for free, by hunters, who also buy duck stamps to legally hunt waterfowl. The stamps, in turn, support habitat conservation.
'Hunters are paying for this information in several forms and then acting as scientists by collecting data for the information they paid for,' Lindberg said. 'It's a neat system that I really don't understand the criticism of.'
A spokesperson for the Department of the Interior, which manages the US Geological Survey, declined to comment directly on the cuts to the lab.
Advertisement
Congress must still approve the proposed budget. Bird organizations, including the American Bird Conservancy and the Ornithological Council, have expressed concern about the closure of the lab, as banding is also important in monitoring raptors, seabirds, songbirds, and other birds. Through banding, researchers have kept tabs on the oldest wild bird in the world, a female albatross named Wisdom, whose band number is 'Z333.'
For Bortner, the lab's uniqueness has made it vital. 'It's the only one,' he said.
This article originally appeared in
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
The floods in Texas show why we need to fully fund NOAA labs
A national discussion is underway on the role of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service in forecasting the deadly July 4 flash floods in Kerr County, Texas. The record shows that the hard-working meteorologists and other staff at the National Weather Service were successful in providing Texas Hill Country with timely, accurate forecasts. It is critical to reflect on government role's in the short term and build a minute-by-minute chronology of the disaster. But it is equally important to highlight the long-term investments America needs for climate and weather resilience. This means talking about the NOAA labs and other research centers dedicated to basic science. These institutions are essential to innovation in precipitation forecasting and warnings that save lives, yet they are on the chopping block in the president's latest Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal. President Trump's budget proposal called for closing all NOAA labs and cooperative institutes with universities. It also calls for closing its Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, which funds and coordinates with the labs and cooperative institutes. Congress is debating funding levels for NOAA research now as it begins the appropriations process. A final budget aligned with the president's proposal would devastate NOAA research, including precipitation research, rendering the agency unable to update and innovate the weather and climate models that support the military, businesses, individuals and community institutions like Camp Mystic in Texas. Consider the significance of NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, Oklahoma. The lab, working with the University of Oklahoma and the Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, developed the Flooded Locations and Simulated Hydrographs Project (FLASH), which improves the accuracy, timing and specificity of flash-flood warnings. FLASH doubled accuracy for the National Weather Service, improved spatial resolution by 500 percent, provided up to six hours of forecast lead time and improved forecasters' ability to identify rare, severe flash floods. Consider also the role of labs and cooperative institutes in developing NOAA's newest hurricane model, the Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System. The model attests to NOAA's commitment to continually improving its forecasts for potentially catastrophic natural disasters. In 2024 alone, there were five tropical cyclones causing losses exceeding $1 billion in the U.S., and NOAA predicts an above-normal 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, with three to five major hurricanes. Hurricane forecasting is especially difficult in today's era of 'rapid intensification,' which refers to an increase in the maximum sustained winds of a tropical cyclone of at least 30 knots in a 24-hour period. The magnitude of rapid intensification in the central and eastern Atlantic Ocean has been increasing over the past 30 years. The Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System has made critical improvements in predicting the path and intensity of hurricanes. The model, operational since June 2023, has saved lives, property and infrastructure. In 2024, it successfully predicted the rapid intensifications of hurricanes Helene and Milton. At its peak, Milton reached Category 5 intensity and became one of the strongest hurricanes on record in the Atlantic basin. Helene landed in Florida as a Category 4 storm and became the deadliest hurricane in the contiguous U.S. since Katrina. The Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System's success was no accident. Its design came to fruition after careful investment. It took five years of research and development from three NOAA centers of excellence: the National Weather Service Environmental Modeling Center, the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory, and the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies. Trump and his allies in Congress seem to think that Americans can enjoy NOAA's finished products, such as high-quality hurricane forecasts, without spending a dime on basic research. Eighty years of federally sponsored scientific research tell us otherwise. 'Basic research leads to new knowledge,' wrote American inventor and engineer Vannevar Bush in a landmark report on science to President Harry S. Truman. 'It provides scientific capital. It creates the fund from which the practical applications of knowledge must be drawn. New products and new processes do not appear full-grown. They are founded on new principles and new conceptions, which in turn are painstakingly developed by research in the purest realms of science.' We cannot uproot the tree of science and expect it to still bear fruit. Congress should fully fund NOAA research and all other parts of this essential agency, or risk endangering American lives, property and infrastructure.
Politico
a day ago
- Politico
Trump's man in NASA
With help from Laura Kayali WELCOME TO POLITICO PRO SPACE. I got the first interview with NASA chief of staff Brian Hughes, the most senior Trump administration appointee at the agency. Read on for his take on the big changes happening at NASA. What's your take on the agency's direction? Email me at sskove@ with tips, pitches and feedback, and find me on X at @samuelskove. And remember, we're offering this newsletter for free over the next few weeks. After that, only POLITICO Pro subscribers will receive it. Read all about it here. The Spotlight Few space nerds could have predicted Brian Hughes' rise from Florida political operative and former National Security Council spokesperson to one of the most powerful figures at NASA. It started in June when billionaire Jared Isaacman was all set to take over as NASA administrator — only to see that job yanked away amid a bitter fight between his prospective boss, President Donald Trump, and his old business partner, Elon Musk. When the dust settled, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy was left in charge as 'interim' NASA director, with a slate of big tasks. The agency must plan a mission to the moon and then Mars, deal with proposed budget cuts that decimate science research, and handle a staff exodus. It's still not clear who is leading space policy at the White House, and it may be months until NASA has a permanent administrator. Enter Hughes, who amid the turmoil, became the agency's chief of staff. Hughes, in his first public interview since taking the job in May, laid out what he sees as the agency's priorities, and responded to concerns about its future. Florida man: Hughes, who doesn't have a background in space, let alone NASA, is not your typical chief of staff — although he does say he's 'a proud member of nerds of America.' But Hughes brings along an important qualification. He's close to the White House, thanks to his role leading Trump's Florida campaign and his long history working with White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. To-do list: Hughes' top goals for NASA include pulling off a moon landing, supporting space commercialization, making progress toward sending astronauts to Mars and replacing the aging International Space Station. Moon vs. Mars: To the relief of moon advocates, Hughes suggested that NASA wouldn't follow along with Musk's dreams of ditching a moon mission in favor of Mars. NASA will pursue the 'moon as a pathway towards Mars, but really a focus on the moon in the short term,' he told me. Brain drain defense: NASA has seen nearly 4,000 employees walk out the door in the wake of proposed massive cuts and Trump administration efforts to thin the federal government. Hughes pushed back on the idea that the losses were devastating to the agency, even though most of the departures are senior level positions. 'I don't think there's any critical loss' of knowledge, he said. The agency is working to limit the impact by staggering departures, he added, and sixty percent of those who are leaving are at retirement age. 'Even when some senior people have left, there's an additional cadre behind them,' Hughes said. Budget battle: But the biggest storm clouds he'll likely face involve the coming battle between Congress and the White House over the NASA budget. The White House wants a cut of almost 25 percent, the biggest slash to the agency in decades. Congress would like to keep NASA funding where it is, and lawmakers aren't backing down. Hughes — perhaps hopefully — suggested that Congress and the White House could reach common ground as they work on the budget. 'It'll be like anything else — manage the consensus and respect the will of Congress,' he said. Galactic Government READY FOR LAUNCH: The U.S. has made progress in encouraging the mad scientists behind America's growing rocket launch industry. But the government needs to spread the financial love if it wants to keep costs low and the country secure, according to a new paper provided exclusively to me from the Progressive Policy Institute. One company — United Launch Alliance — used to dominate the launch industry. But the military and NASA now have more than a half dozen to choose from, including SpaceX, Rocket Lab and Blue Origin. Monopoly: While more choices are usually good for business, government buying patterns mean that the U.S. could end up with fewer launch providers than it needs, according to report author Mary Guenther, head of space policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. NASA, for example, could buy from a range of companies. But it still contracts with SpaceX for more than 60 percent of its missions. 'The agency needs to reassess its acquisition policies to avoid a relationship of convenience with SpaceX,' she wrote. It's regulation: Guenther also flagged a lack of launch infrastructure and a tough regulatory environment as an obstacle to the growth of the market. A lack of staffing at the office that licenses launches, for example, means the office must triage applications, a practice that Guenther said often favors SpaceX. Why it matters: The risk of relying on any one rocket company burst into view in early June during a rift between Trump and Musk, SpaceX's founder. Trump threatened to cancel government contracts with the billionaire, causing Musk to say he would cancel SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, the only way for the U.S. to get to and from the International Space Station without relying on Russia. Fortunately for American astronauts, he did not follow through. Military THE TRUMP BUMP: While European governments remain highly dependent on U.S. weaponry, fears about Trump's unreliability are fueling them to try and buy local. That's especially true in the space domain. Rafał Modrzewski, the CEO of Finnish-based satellite company ICEYE, said in an interview that he saw a direct correlation between Trump's temporary decision to stop sharing space intelligence with Ukraine in March and a boost in government demand for his firm's military satellites. 'That was a huge wake-up call for countries contemplating whether they should own their own satellites or rather lease from allied nations and benefit from intelligence sharing,' he said. The European Commission has identified space-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance as a key gap in European arsenals. Europe and beyond: ICEYE customers include NATO, Ukraine, Poland, Greece, Finland and Portugal. The company is also active in Japan, South Korea, the UAE and is hoping to increase its footprint in Brazil. Caveat: ICEYE satellites are mainly launched by American company SpaceX. Oops. The Reading Room Silicon valley enters the space race: POLITICO What is the FAA planning for rocket launch licenses?: Payload Musk ordered shutdown of Starlink satellite service as Ukraine retook territory from Russia: Reuters Air leak persists on Russian ISS segment: SpaceNews India safely launches a $1.5 billion satellite for NASA: Ars Technica Event Horizon MONDAY: The Mitchell Institute holds a webinar with Lt. Gen. DeAnna Burt of the Space Force. WEDNESDAY: The Intelligence and National Security Association holds a meeting on securing space. THURSDAY: The Federal Communications Commission holds an open meeting that will include discussion of space. The Progressive Policy Institute hosts a 'Space & National Security Happy Hour' at Hawk 'N' Dove. Photo of the Week MORNING MONEY: CAPITAL RISK — POLITICO's flagship financial newsletter has a new Friday edition built for the economic era we're living in: one shaped by political volatility, disruption and a wave of policy decisions with sector-wide consequences. Each week, Morning Money: Capital Risk brings sharp reporting and analysis on how political risk is moving markets and how investors are adapting. Want to know how health care regulation, tariffs or court rulings could ripple through the economy? Start here. (To sign up, add Financial Services to your policy interests and then add Morning Money to your newsletters.)
Axios
2 days ago
- Axios
Here's the "big, beautiful bill's" $300 million pet project that few noticed
Texas Republicans scored a little-known win in Trump's " big beautiful bill": the transfer of the iconic Space Shuttle Discovery housed in the Washington D.C. suburbs to a National Aeronautics and Space Administration facility in Houston. The big picture: Forcing the relocation of the Discovery with questionable legal authority to do so reflects the political and cultural pressure America's museums have been under regarding how to display, tell, and manage the country's history. What they're saying: The Smithsonian controls "all rights, title, interest and ownership" over the shuttle, an institution spokesperson told Axios in a statement. The spokesperson said transporting the shuttle "would be very complicated and expensive, and likely result in irreparable damage to the shuttle and its components." The spokesperson also added that the shuttle is a "fragile object" given its "age and condition" that must be handled using specific methods, which exceed "typical museum transport protocols." The other side:"Houston played a critical role throughout the life of the space shuttle program," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said in a statement celebrating the planned relocation. "But it is clear political favors trumped common sense and fairness when the Obama administration blocked the Space City from receiving the recognition it deserves," the statement continues, referencing a 2010 act that details the various way space shuttles can be retired and distributed. NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment. By the numbers: The Smithsonian Institution estimated that relocating the Discovery from Virginia to Texas could cost upwards of $300 million, far more than the $85 million the bill allocates for the transfer. The Institution estimates transporting the shuttle could cost between $50-55 million, in addition to roughly $325 million for museum preparations and the construction of a new permanent display facility. A preliminary estimate from a private company calculated that moving the shuttle could cost approximately $8 million, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service. Any of these estimates could change as the relocation plans are clarified. Catch up quick: Texas Republicans introduced two identical bills in the House and the Senate this year that proposed transferring the Discovery from the Washington D.C. suburbs to NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. The relocation efforts are essentially stalled in committee, but similar language made it into Trump's recently passed "big beautiful bill," and a congressional report explicitly singles out transferring the Discovery. Yes, but: There are other space vehicles that could be eligible for transfer, according to the congressional report. There are two other retired space shuttles that fit the criteria, as do several vehicles on display in public and private venues. The bill does not explicitly prohibit vehicles in private possession from being transferred. What's next: The "big beautiful bill" requires acting NASA head and U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to identify a space vehicle to be moved that has flown into space and carried astronauts to be moved. The bill directs Duffy to identify the vehicle within 30 days after the bill was enacted, a deadline that'll pass during the first week of August. The vehicle Duffy chooses must be transferred to its end location no later than 18 months after the bill became law on July 4, 2025.
