Pittman Robertson funds were illegally diverted to fund wolf introduction

[idahohuntr]

Its important to remeber that we will not change the minds of those like Idahohnter. It IS important to show how there is NO common sense in how this issue is/was or likely will be handled if we stay our current course.

I think the guy simply enjoys trying to create division to distract from the issue. I would just as soon concentrate on showing the public more info supporting the need for management but it's hard to stand by and let someone try to discredit everything anyone says. Thus the reason I dug up this info to substantiate the misappropriation of P-R funds.

Your desire to talk about a federal agency budgeting nuance seems more in line with someone who wants to distract from the reality that wolves are here and are not going away. 

[pianoman9701]

Those are two separate issues. 1. The issue that wolves are here to stay, and 2. Law were broken and the American people were defrauded by the USFWS. You seem unconcerned about the loss of $60-70M from PR funds. It's attitudes from you like that which have people wondering about your motives and associations. It's inconceivable to most of us that a hunter would be unconcerned about the misappropriation of such a huge sum of PR funds. I'm concerned and would like to see some people fry for it. That's where Bearpaw is coming from, as well.

[jasnt]

USFWS has broad authority on the use of PR funds as they administer them to the states.  They decide what the states can use the money for.  Furthermore, the PR act has a few very broad objectives...the first one is restoration of wild birds and mammals...wolf recovery and restoration clearly fits within this authority granted by Congress.  Your or Beers' use of the word "stolen" is ridiculous.  Its a federal excise tax managed by USFWS...again, they decide how and what projects states get to fund.  Its been that way forever. 

Here is a link to a timeline on wolf recovery issues from IDFG...it gives you a much better perspective of just how aware and involved Congress had to be for wolf reintroduction to happen. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/wolves/?getPage=161

I opposed re-introduction.  However, if folks have some fascination that if Beers' allegations can be proven that somehow that would have any effect on wolf management or whether they would have been released in the lower 48 or whether it could possibly lead to removal or less protections...absolutely not at all.  Like it or not, and many of us do not, wolf re-introduction was and is legal.  Was there an accounting error in this multi-decade intensive and controversial effort?  I would be shocked if any federal agency could pull off a large project without some minor issue like this popping up. 

if they did nothing wrong why pay him to keep quiet

[idahohuntr]

Cost to litigate > Cost to settle.

If Beers' is some holier than thou savior of wildlife funds...why did he sign a non-disclosure agreement and take a payoff?  Reality is, he was near retirement, probably didn't like his bosses and was a pain in their backside...it was easier and less expensive to give him a little money and get him to retire than to fire a long-time federal employee (ask the VA about this!).  Beers' then goes on to try and make more money by hitching his wagon to the lucrative wolf gravy train like other extremist whacko groups like Big Game Forever and Defenders of Wildlife...note in one of the posts about Mr. Beers there is a line that he is available for "speaking and consulting" 

Also, whistleblower protection laws provide 10% of the fraudulent/stolen/embezzled funds to the whistleblower.  I guarantee you Beers' did not settle for anything close to 10% of the 60-70 million dollars he claims was "stolen" by USFWS.  Why?  Because he knows dang well USFWS spent the money within their authorities and at the very worst there was some poor judgement...which also explains why congress never did anything to any FWS employees...because at worst we are talking about some fairly minor bureaucratic nuances. 

These wolf issues are so controversial...de-listing in ID/MT/WY/E. Wa came down to an unprecedented act of congress to bypass a very controversial ESA law...and knowing that folks still believe USFWS introduced these wolves completely illegally and congress just said oh shucks were kind of busy right now?  Particularly given republican controlled house and senate for most of the years since re-introduction...with republican congressman representing Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming??? 

This one ranks up there with secret wolf releases in WA, for which no one has ever been caught or held accountable, in terms of how much logic and reality you have to set aside in order to believe.

[bearpaw]

Cost to litigate > Cost to settle.

If Beers' is some holier than thou savior of wildlife funds...why did he sign a non-disclosure agreement and take a payoff?  Reality is, he was near retirement, probably didn't like his bosses and was a pain in their backside...it was easier and less expensive to give him a little money and get him to retire than to fire a long-time federal employee (ask the VA about this!).  Beers' then goes on to try and make more money by hitching his wagon to the lucrative wolf gravy train like other extremist whacko groups like Big Game Forever and Defenders of Wildlife...note in one of the posts about Mr. Beers there is a line that he is available for "speaking and consulting" 

Also, whistleblower protection laws provide 10% of the fraudulent/stolen/embezzled funds to the whistleblower.  I guarantee you Beers' did not settle for anything close to 10% of the 60-70 million dollars he claims was "stolen" by USFWS.  Why?  Because he knows dang well USFWS spent the money within their authorities and at the very worst there was some poor judgement...which also explains why congress never did anything to any FWS employees...because at worst we are talking about some fairly minor bureaucratic nuances. 

These wolf issues are so controversial...de-listing in ID/MT/WY/E. Wa came down to an unprecedented act of congress to bypass a very controversial ESA law...and knowing that folks still believe USFWS introduced these wolves completely illegally and congress just said oh shucks were kind of busy right now?  Particularly given republican controlled house and senate for most of the years since re-introduction...with republican congressman representing Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming??? 

This one ranks up there with secret wolf releases in WA, for which no one has ever been caught or held accountable, in terms of how much logic and reality you have to set aside in order to believe.

If there was no truth in the claims why did congress bother hearing from beers. 
WOW, you are way out there now and with absolutely no documentation to back up your absurd accusations. At least I show documentation to back up what I say.

[idahohuntr]

My proof is no one has ever been fired, convicted, charged, etc...how in the heck do you steal 60 million dollars and nothing happens?  Particularly if you are a Democrat appointee when republicans controlled congress....then republicans had congress and the whitehouse...and nothing happened to anyone except beers was forced out of usfws...use some sense for crying out loud!  There was a gsa conference that cost taxpayers close to a million bucks and new federal laws were passed, several people were fired, etc...but 60 million and nothing?

[bearpaw]

The head of USFWS is now the executive of Defenders Of Wildlife and filing lawsuits to stop wolf delisting. HHHMMMMM
I think your apathy demonstrates how Obama gets away with excessive executive actions and how USFWS got away with robbing P-R funds from the states. I am sorry but it appears you simply do not understand the P-R Act!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act
Overview

The Pittman–Robertson Act took over a pre-existing 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition.[7][8] Instead of going into the U.S. Treasury as it had done in the past, the money is kept separate and is given to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to the States.[4][8][9] The Secretary determines how much to give to each state based on a formula that takes into account both the area of the state and its number of licensed hunters.[2][3][6][9][10]

These States must fulfill certain requirements to use the money apportioned to them. None of the money from their hunting license sales may be used by anyone other than the State’s fish and game department.[3][6][8] Plans for what to do with the money must be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.[6] Acceptable options include research, surveys, management of wildlife and/or habitat and acquisition or lease of land, among other things.[1][6][10] Once a plan has been approved, the state must pay the full cost and is later reimbursed for up to 75% of that cost through P–R funds.[1][3][10] The 25% of the cost that the State must pay generally comes from its hunting license sales.[1] If, for whatever reason, any of the federal money does not get spent, after two years that money is then reallocated to the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.[6][9]

In the 1970s, amendments created a 10% tax on handguns and their ammunition and accessories as well as an 11% tax on archery equipment.[1][2][3][8][10] It was also mandated that half of the money from each of those new taxes must be used to educate and train hunters through the creation and maintenance of hunter safety classes and shooting/target ranges.[1][2][3][10]

Results

This piece of legislation has provided states with funding for research and projects that would have been unaffordable otherwise.[10] According to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service webpage that was updated in January 2010, over two billion dollars of federal aid has been generated through this program, which in turn means that states have kept up their 25% contributions with over 500 million dollars.[1] The habitat acquisition and improvement made possible by this money has allowed some species with large ranges such as American black bears, elk, cougars, and others, to expand those ranges beyond where they were found prior to the implementation of the act.[1] Important game populations such as white-tailed deer and several Galliformes have also had a chance to recover and expand their populations.[1][8]

Economics

The idea behind this act is that by creating more and better hunting experiences for people through habitat management and hunter education, more taxable items will be purchased, which would then provide more funding for management and improvement.[7][8] The habitat improvement may also stimulate the eco-tourism sector of the economy by creating jobs in areas where people tend to visit for hunting or aesthetic reasons.[1][8]

One source shows hunters spending around ten billion dollars a year on everything they need for their hunting trips.[1] A different source found that hunters spend between 2.8 and 5.2 billion dollars a year on taxable merchandise.[8] This generates between 177 and 324 million dollars a year in P–R money.[8]

Another source estimated that hunters contribute about three and a half million dollars a day to conservation by purchasing taxable items and hunting licenses.[4]

One study showed an extremely high Return on Investment for firearm manufacturers; 823% to 1588% depending on the year.

[idahohuntr]

I have a very strong understanding of PR.  The part you bolded and underlined...you do understand that is in reference to state fees collected (the license and tag you buy from WDFW) correct?  That is not in reference to PR funds which are provided to the states by USFWS...its a requirement of the act for a state to even be considered for receiving PR funds from USFWS.  Maybe that is where you are confused?

I have no apathy for misuse of funds.  I simply do not believe Jim Beers.  He is nothing more than a money grubbing disgruntled ex-employee.  You have provided not one shred of evidence to support statements that money was "stolen".  USFWS using PR funds (which they are responsible for administering!!) for the restoration of endangered species (which is a congressionally authorized activity of theirs) is not stealing.  Its really that simple...which explains why none of Mr. Beers' allegations resulted in any sort of trouble for upper management at USFWS. 

Again, these allegations are akin to the rumors that WDFW plants wolves in WA...it has no bearing on current and future wolf management and you have to set aside logic and reason to believe it.   

   

[bearpaw]

I have a very strong understanding of PR.  The part you bolded and underlined...you do understand that is in reference to state fees collected (the license and tag you buy from WDFW) correct?  That is not in reference to PR funds which are provided to the states by USFWS...its a requirement of the act for a state to even be considered for receiving PR funds from USFWS.  Maybe that is where you are confused?

I have no apathy for misuse of funds.  I simply do not believe Jim Beers.  He is nothing more than a money grubbing disgruntled ex-employee.  You have provided not one shred of evidence to support statements that money was "stolen".  USFWS using PR funds (which they are responsible for administering!!) for the restoration of endangered species (which is a congressionally authorized activity of theirs) is not stealing.  Its really that simple...which explains why none of Mr. Beers' allegations resulted in any sort of trouble for upper management at USFWS. 

Again, these allegations are akin to the rumors that WDFW plants wolves in WA...it has no bearing on current and future wolf management and you have to set aside logic and reason to believe it.   

I'm sorry but everything in print is contrary to your claims. If you expect anyone to take you seriously, you need to show where it says that money can legally be taken from the P-R fund and used by a federal agency, please, you are going to need to show us something other than "your" opinion. Everything presented in print thus far says otherwise! 

http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/PittmanRobertsonFacts.pdf
How are the Pittman-Robertson Funds Allocated?
USFWS then deposits the PR
revenue into a special account
called the Wildlife Restoration Trust
Fund, which is administered by
the USFWS. These funds are made
available to states and territories the
year following their collection.
The distribution of the funds is set by
a formula. First, $8 million is utilized
for Enhanced Hunter Education
programs, including the construction
or maintenance of public target
ranges. Second, $3 million is set
aside for projects that require
cooperation among the states. Third,
one-half of the excise tax collected
on handguns are set aside for Basic
Hunter Education programs.ii In most
cases, states must match at least
25% of a project’s cost.
The remainder of the trust fund is
then divided in half with 50%
allocated in proportion to the area
of the state and 50% in proportion
to the number of paid hunting
licenses in the state relative to
paid hunting licenses in the entire
country.

[bearpaw]

I scanned these 12 pages published by the USFWS and there is nothing mentioned that any P-R money can be used by a federal agency for anything other than administrative costs, instead it says the money goes to the states. 

http://www.fws.gov/budget/2013/PDF%20Files%20FY%202013%20Greenbook/24.%20Wildlife%20Restoration.pdf

[bearpaw]

Everything I read here says funds go to the states!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/50/part-80/subpart-H
50 CFR Part 80, Subpart H - General Grant Administration

[bearpaw]

Even WDFW says the funds go to the states!
http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_restoration/

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
 (Pittman-Robertson)

Description
 The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, was approved by Congress on September 2, 1937, and became effective July 1, 1938.

The purpose of this Act was to provide funding for restoration of wild birds and mammals and to acquire, develop and manage their habitats. The Act was amended October 23, 1970, to include funding for hunter training programs and the development, operation and maintenance of public shooting ranges.

Funds are derived from an 11 percent federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns. These funds are collected from the manufacturers by the Department of the Treasury and are apportioned each year to the states by the Department of the Interior on the basis of formulas that consider the total area of the state and the number of licensed hunters in the state. Funds for hunter education and target ranges are derived from one-half of the tax on handguns and archery equipment.

[RadSav]

Everything I read here says funds go to the states!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/50/part-80/subpart-H
50 CFR Part 80, Subpart H - General Grant Administration

The US Code 16 seems to open the door a little more.  Leaving some interpretation that might not be so State centered as 50 is.  16 mentions multiple times about term limits of available funds to the States and to some extent how those funds are to be used by the Interior once, and if, the State doe not match funds or does not use all available P-R funds. 

Funds go to the State unless the State does not use the appropriated funds within the year or following year of allocation.  As I understand it those funds unused within that term then become granted to the Secretary of the Interior.  With the inefficiencies in state governments I would expect those allocations could add up to a significant amount.  Though I have seen zero reports related to the transfer of those funds from the states back to the Interior and how extensive those funds may or may not be.

It is my understanding that once granted to the Interior most of those funds are to be made available for expenditure by the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out the provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.  However, it is also my understanding that if the State does not address needs of some species by what the Secretary of the Interior deems threatened it may use these unclaimed State funds to address the unmet needs for a diverse array of wildlife and associated habitats, including species that are not hunted or fished.

There is also a lot of grey area in section 11 in regards to "nongovernmental organizations that represent conservation organizations".  One could argue that a wolf recovery plan by a nongovernmental organization is in opposition of sport hunting.  However, with evidence that wolf hunting is becoming legal in many states that would be a losing battle.  This may or may not require a vote by Game department heads of 26 states as in other multistate grants.  But, I am not well enough versed on the legal jargon to determine the how and ways of that.

This may very well be how funds were allocated for Wolf recovery without collaboration with the States using funds from P-R   If you wanted to get aggressive in finding details regarding all funds and their allocations and appropriate or inappropriate usage by the Interior I would suggest contacting Rep. Paul Ryan.  I know of no other person with his dedication and understanding of P-R.  If there is something funky going on with these funds I'd expect he has his finger on it's pulse.  IMO he is probably the single most important advocate for sportsmen in the house of not in all of Washington DC.

[turkeyfeather]

Bearpaw- thanks for all the info proving this theft from we the people.
Idaho- Admit it, your wrong and you just won't admit it. Your like a stubborn 5 yr old.

[bearpaw]

Thanks for the comments Radsav, did you see anything that would allow the funds to be used without filing the forms that Ed Bangs is alleged to have not filed?

For the record, I have no interest in pursuing this, I am too busy and I'm not knowledgeable enough, but I was challenged to show proof of what Beers claims which is what I have tried to do.