Pittman Robertson funds were illegally diverted to fund wolf introduction

[idahohuntr]

Bearpaw- Federal budgeting and expenditures is a complex process.  You and I are far from qualified to render legal opinions or correctly interpret many of these CFR's...(RadSav seems a lot more qualified though)! All federal agencies have tons of lawyers who have significant roles in determining what is and is not allowed in expending funds.  Knowing that, in combination with knowing many federal attorneys who do this kind of work and the fact that no agency staff were even given so much as a warning letter leads me to the conclusion that Beers' and others are incorrect about USFWS "stealing" funds.

Citing 50 national enquirer articles that all repeat the same 3 lines quoting Beers' is not proof of anything.  I explain, through critical reasoning skills, why I do not believe Beers.  Folks should not accept "quantity" of links and articles as demonstrating proof of anything...I bet I could find a 1000 articles (with links) that Elvis is still alive!  You still have to use your own judgement and reasoning.

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.

I prefer red-headed step child    I will gladly admit to the stuborness turkey, but I have articulated why I do not believe USFWS "stole" PR funds.  Popular opinion and linking a bunch of national enquirer type articles unfortunately do not prove anything. 

[Bob33]

Some interesting insight from NRA ILA in 2000:

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2000/letter-to-nra-members-concerning-the-pi.aspx?s=%22Hunting%2FConservation%22&st=&ps=

[RadSav]

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?

I will have to look at that in depth.  Takes me so long to wade through all the legal wording and try to understand even 25% of it.  But, I will try to take a stab at it this evening.

..(RadSav seems a lot more qualified though)!

It would be a mistake to think I am qualified to interpret anything legal.  I am usually left dazed and confused by the time I weed through documents so screwy at P-R and the various amendments.  I have absolutely no formal education that should lead anyone to think I am at all qualified to interpret legal paperwork.

[idahohuntr]

It would be a mistake to think I am qualified to interpret anything legal. 

Silliness RadSav.  You need to be racking up billable hours at a rate of about $300/hr! 

[RadSav]

It would be a mistake to think I am qualified to interpret anything legal. 

Silliness RadSav.  You need to be racking up billable hours at a rate of about $300/hr!

To pay off my million dollar student loan bill...No Thanks

[idahohuntr]

It would be a mistake to think I am qualified to interpret anything legal. 

Silliness RadSav.  You need to be racking up billable hours at a rate of about $300/hr!

To pay off my million dollar student loan bill...No Thanks

Just go work for USFWS when you graduate...they can pay off your student loans by diverting funds from their PR slush account!   

[bearpaw]

Some interesting insight from NRA ILA in 2000:

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2000/letter-to-nra-members-concerning-the-pi.aspx?s=%22Hunting%2FConservation%22&st=&ps=

I'll quote a portion of this article from a so called "Enquirer article"... 

With respect to the issue of using the Administrative Grant Program to fund an animal rights project, the Service is correct in that no funds were awarded for such a purpose and no employee was fired for refusing to approve such a grant. What I did say, which is true, is that there were attempts by high ranking Service employees to pressure a Federal Aid employee to find such a proposal eligible for funding and upon refusal to do so, the employee was subjected to an adverse personnel action. The information in my letter to you was taken directly from the testimony presented to the House Resources Committee by the affected employee.

The Director`s letter is correct in stating that no Duck Stamp money was spent to buy a remote Pacific Island. What the letter does not say is that it was the Service`s intent to do so until Congressman John Dingell (D-Mich) stepped in to stop the wasteful expenditure of sportsmen`s dollars. That issue, including the letter Congressman Dingell sent to the Secretary of the Interior warning that "he and other Democrats" would "vigorously oppose" the purchase, was mentioned in my "Betrayal of Trust" article. Just because the proposal later failed, does not exonerate the Service from attempting to misuse the sportsmen`s funds.

The Director challenges the statement that millions of administrative fund dollars are unaccounted for because the amount diverted is "0." The GAO testified that there were millions of dollars that could not be accounted for. The Service`s response before the House Resources Committee was that the problem was not in money lost, but in the reconciliation of records due to a change in the accounting system. The Service advised Chairman Young that it would have the accounts reconciled by the end of the calendar year, 1999. To date, there has been no report from the Service that the remaining "lost" money has been reduced to "0."

The NRA is in agreement with the Director that the trust funds are highly successful and that it is important to address these issues with constructive solutions. At no time has the NRA suggested that its members withdraw their support from the trust funds or that the laws be abolished. Rather, we all recognize the tremendous support that these excise tax dollars have provided to wildlife and fish conservation at the state level. That is why we threw our support wholeheartedly behind Congressman Young`s bill, H.R. 3671, which makes reforms in the way the Service manages the trust funds.

The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act passed the House April 5 by a vote of 423 to 2. The overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill validates the findings of GAO`s audit and other investigations and voices strong approval for reforms to be made through the legislative process. Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior (DOI) has offered only lukewarm support to the bill, despite the Director`s comment that the Service was working with Congressman Young on passing this legislation.

In summary, the Director`s letter indicates that the DOI and FWS remain in denial over many aspects of the issues raised by the Congressional hearings and the GAO audit and continue to defend the indefensible -- truly an ongoing "betrayal of trust."

Sincerely,

James Jay Baker
ILA Executive Director

[RadSav]

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?

I will have to look at that in depth.  Takes me so long to wade through all the legal wording and try to understand even 25% of it.  But, I will try to take a stab at it this evening.

Spent most of the last three hours researching all the P-R information I have access to.  Sounds like missing money and misappropriations have been going on since the Nixon administration!  Looks as though Congressman Dingell, Johnson, Goodling in the seventies - Senator Hatch, Congressman Barcia, Camp and Brewster in the mid nineties - Congressman Hunter and Barcia in 2000 and Congressman Ryan 2006 have addressed issues related to misuse of P-R funds and fought for hunters interest in relation to this misuse.  So it does not appear that the claims made by Beers are coming out of left field.  Combined with the acceptance of hush money by Beers makes much of his statements seem founded by more support information than to the contrary in this research.  Though I am sure my sources are limited in scope to what you might get from Paul Ryan (Chairman of the House Budget Committee).

From what I can tell the 3-177 forms mention in the OP and the granting of funds are two separate issues.  As does the Environmental impact studies mentioned.  Importation of wolves would need to have a filed 3-177.  However, legal funding does not seem to be reliant upon prior receipt of these forms.  So while they are listed in the article in close proximity they do not appear to be tied to one another.

It does appear that States, even if they had not claimed the funds within term, must approve the Federal implementation of any and all Wildlife recovery and habit programs.  However, there does appear to be a loophole where the governor of a state may approve federal implementation without the approval of a state wildlife council or the involvement of the state's Fish and Wildlife service.  I would expect if a governor did override or omit it's own game department little information would be made to the public.  Freedom of Information Act would probably be the only way to get that information.  And I assume as we have seen lately even with that getting the truth may not be a given.

I have only touched the surface of all the amendments. Wholly crap there are a lot of them.  The original law has been so divided and polluted that IMO the P-R should be rewritten and replaced.  The quote in the OP, “I was told the money was to be used where I felt it was needed.” seems a reasonable response as I expect the Director is not an attorney.  And I doubt anyone in that office has the time to review and digest the whole thing.  Plus, what narcissistic director needs to know all the rules anyway?  No one has followed them in the past seven years so why would the USFWS Director be any different?

So again, I am absolutely not qualified to make any absolutes.  But from what I have gathered so far I can not dispute anything Beers has referenced in the OP.  However, I can see enough grey area to support the idea, right or wrong/legal or illegal, that the USFWS Director felt they had the right if supported by a single state authority figure.

Not sure of that helps answer your question.  But it is the best I can do with my head spinning from all that legal mess of amendments and cross references.  I thought patent law was difficult to understand...Patent law is like minor league play compared to this messy garbage

[LeviD1]

All I read was the proper channels and paperwork were not filed for the introduction so that means they are an invasive species. = shoot on site as many as possible. Also I read defend my dog and myself with any means necessary to keep possible diseased and definitely dangerous wolves away from me and my pets. They are like feral pigs and gray squirrels, shoot as many and as often as you can? Does anyone think people will every stop introducing animals in areas they don't belong? 

[RadSav]

Does anyone think people will every stop introducing animals in areas they don't belong?

Not if the anti's think it will result in less hunting!  They don't seem to care about animal welfare.  They only care about stopping humans from hunting...and owning guns.

[Special T]

Rad Sav I applaud your diligent work reading up on this issue. Unfortunately common sense tells me what your hard work does.

There is a HUGE pile of money that belongs to a small group of people. The use of which is tangled in LOTS of law. It does not surprise me that politicians would want to tap into that fund and use the bureaucracy to cover their moves. I am not surprised that nobody has been fired or jailed because that is a VERY rare thing in bureaucracy. Normally just a reprimand is sufficient for the public's excitement to blow by.

[Curly]

"It is the goal of Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd to take USFWS, and others, to court to insure they stand accountable for the theft of $60- to $70-million from Pittman Robertson."

The above quote is from the article that Bearpaw posted; I noticed  that article was from 2011.  Anybody  know if any progress  has been made toward a lawsuit? Sounds to me like plenty of people involved in stealing those funds should  have been fired and spending  time in prison.

[fireweed]

I remember quite a bit of press coverage in the Clinton Administration of them robbing duck fund to buy Palmyra atoll in the S. Pacific--a place that has no ducks.  The NRA and hunters responded, and I think the Nature Conservancy ended up buying the atoll and the money was refunded.  Thought there was some new watchdog group after that that was supposed to keep the government from stealing those funds for pet projects.

[RadSav]

I remember quite a bit of press coverage in the Clinton Administration of them robbing duck fund to buy Palmyra atoll in the S. Pacific--a place that has no ducks.  The NRA and hunters responded, and I think the Nature Conservancy ended up buying the atoll and the money was refunded.  Thought there was some new watchdog group after that that was supposed to keep the government from stealing those funds for pet projects.

Young, Hunter and Barcia helped form the "Congressional Bowhunters Caucus" which was suppose to join the " Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus" in being just one of many watchdogs after that mess.  Sounds like the watchdog groups have the life span of a coyote as I have seen very little action over the past 15 years

Then in 2009 the Humane Society got their foot in the door with the help of U.S. Representatives Jim Moran (D- VA) and Elton Gallegy (R- CA) announcing the formation of a "Congressional Animal Protection Caucus". The goal of the group is to get like-minded members of Congress together and promote animal rights policy in Washington, D.C..  Seems to be where a lot of the illegal private money is coming from.  And with the corruption of the HSUS I expect back door deals are a high priority means of theft from P-R, though that is just my personal deduction.

[idahohuntr]

So is there a detailed account alleging all specific projects and total cost for each project that were "illegal"?  Surely Beers' must have this information detailed somewhere?  Successfully holding people accountable will require not spending a lot of effort on trying to pin folks for projects that are likely or even possibly acceptable to fund using PR...I want to see the "no doubt" expenditures...particularly if we are going to use the word "stolen".  Did the Directory buy himself a nice lakefront property? A new car? Did they hire mind-readers??

Those are things that will bring charges against people...is there any of that?  Or is the entire alleged 60-70 million "stolen" dollars all tied up in things that some "feel" are not appropriate...like hiking trails, species restoration and recovery, offices for staff to work in? 

Specific to the wolf stuff, (and RadSav touched on this earlier), now that wolves are a huntable big game animal I think it would be really, really, hard to say PR funds to restore a species that can now be hunted is inappropriate.  Are guys not buying wolf tags/licenses, ammo, wolf calls/traps/scents etc. that they would not have purchased if there were no wolf seasons...which now themselves contribute to PR?