Experts don't have an agenda. They get paid no matter what they find. Saying there is an agenda among researchers is a kind of myth that can be tracked back for over a century. People don't change, it seems.

Anyway, a small sample:
"In 2013 the Krefeld Entomological Society reported a "huge reduction in the biomass of insects"[12] caught in malaise traps in 63 nature reserves in Germany (57 in Nordrhein-Westfalen, one in Rheinland-Pfalz and one in Brandenburg).[31][32] A reanalysis published in 2017 suggested that, in 1989–2016, there had been a "seasonal decline of 76%, and mid-summer decline of 82%, in flying insect biomass over the 27 years of study". The decline was "apparent regardless of habitat type" and could not be explained by "changes in weather, land use, and habitat characteristics". The authors suggested that not only butterflies, moths and wild bees appear to be in decline, as previous studies indicated, but "the flying insect community as a whole".

"A 2018 study of the El Yunque National Forest in Puerto Rico reported a decline in arthropods, and in lizards, frogs, and birds (insect-eating species) based on measurements in 1976 and 2012.[38][3] The American entomologist David Wagner called the study a "clarion call" and "one of the most disturbing articles" he had ever read.[39] The researchers reported "biomass losses between 98% and 78% for ground-foraging and canopy-dwelling arthropods over a 36-year period"

"In 2019 a study by Statistics Netherlands and the Vlinderstichting (Dutch Butterfly Conservation) of butterfly numbers in the Netherlands from 1890 to 2017 reported an estimated decline of 84 percent. When analysed by type of habitat, the trend was found to have stabilised in grassland and woodland in recent decades but the decline continued in heathland. The decline was attributed to changes in land use due to more efficient farming methods, which has caused a decline in weeds. The recent up-tick in some populations documented in the study was attributed to (conservationist) changes in land management and thus an increase in suitable habitat.[40][41][42][43] A report by the Swiss Academy of Natural Sciences in April 2019 reported that 60 percent of the insects that had been studied in Switzerland were at risk, mostly in farming and aquatic areas; that there had been a 60 percent decline in insect-eating birds since 1990 in rural areas; and that urgent action was needed to address the causes."

You can also find details that report that certain insects are not declining, and that there is little measurable decline in some areas. But the overall trend is that they have been declining. Most persons in their 60s and 70s will state, informally, that they have noticed the loss as well. I certainly can say so. When visiting the same forests and fields that I ran in as a kid, the difference I see is immediate. My brother, who has stayed in the area also says so and is actually rather alarmed by it even though he could not care less about bugs.

One can similary find studies that quantitate worldwide declines in birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians. The sheer breadth and consistency of these independent findings can hardly be a coincidental error. Again, experts get paid no. matter. what.

quixdraw, if you could go back to your current area 60 years ago, or a century ago, you would find pretty quickly that it is different now. You may think its buggy now, but not if you have the long view! Just as one example, we had a kind of locust (a grasshopper) that darkened the skies over the American west, I think including Montana, about a century ago. It went extinct before you were born.

I think this matter is settled unless hard data finds otherwise. Then we revise. That approach is the best way to find the truth.