Post by: bearpaw on November 17, 2014, 01:38:07 PM
Quote
In his presentation to Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Oregon sportsmen, guides & outfitters, media and politicians, Jim Beers shared how he worked his way up through the ranks. And while working with the Pittman-Robertson funds, he was also appointed to work with U.S. Trade Representative groups and the State Department to address a European Union ban on furs taken with leg hold traps in the U.S. and Russia.
Beers has always considered himself a wildlife manager, holding a Bachelors Degree in Wildlife Resources. He sees the use of leg hold traps as an effective tool for managing furbearers, such as raccoons, foxes, coyotes and mink. And made an all out effort to get the European ban removed from U.S. furs. And thanks largely to his efforts, it was.
He says that he was fully aware of USFWS regularly meeting with “environmental” and “animal rights” groups in secrecy, and entering into under the table agreements with them. After the defeat of the efforts to outlaw the use of leg hold traps in the U.S., he noticed a very different attitude toward him. Beers feels that the outcome was not what USFWS may have agreed to with groups pushing for the elimination of leg hold traps in this country.
Later in the 1990s, while working with the distribution of sportsmen provided excise taxes, he began to question why the amount of Pittman-Robertson funds being distributed to state wildlife agencies had failed to increase over a several year period. This was during the Clinton administration, and a fear that the administration would make it increasingly difficult to buy firearms and ammunition resulted in frenzy buying and stockpiling. With such record sales, Beers rationalized that there should be a parallel increase in the amount of excise taxes collected - but he was not seeing that trend in the amount he had to distribute. His probing of this issue must have hit a nerve or two with upper USFWS management, and he suddenly found himself put on administrative leave, and told to “Go Fishing...With Pay!”
He was also threatened, and told not to discuss the issue with anyone, or he could lose his job and health benefits. However, while Beers was not officially “on the job”, co-workers handling the distribution of Pittman-Robertson monies often asked him to take a look at this or that, and for advice. While stepping into the office to “visit” on one opportunity, one of those co-workers asked him to look over a massive print out of the expenditures made with Pittman-Robertson funds, and Jim was surprised to find numerous uses of the taxes collected to fund non-hunting and non-fishing related projects. Those discrepancies included funding for wildlife management lands used for the building of a prison, to fund park improvements, and for purchasing USFWS vehicles. None of which qualify for funding under the Pittman-Robertson Act.
So, what does all of this have to do with wolves? Read on.
Beers blew the whistle on the misappropriation of monies that were supposed to be used exclusively for wildlife habitat and fisheries improvement. And Congress launched an official inquiry.
What they discovered was that USFWS had embezzled as much as $60- to $70-million from the excise taxes collected on sportsman purchases of guns, ammo and fishing tackle. According to Beers, when USFWS Director Jamie Rappaport Clark was questioned about the unauthorized use of these monies, her comment was something to the effect of, “I was told the money was to be used where I felt it was needed.”
So, where did USFWS use “your” tax dollars...the money that was supposed to be for funding projects that insure the health of the wildlife and fish resources sportsmen have worked so hard to build? According to Jim Beers, one use was to fund the introduction of those Canadian wolves into the Northern Rockies. That’s right, they used “your” money to fund dumping wolves into one of the richest wildlife areas of North America - unleashing the wildlife equivalent of cancer to destroy the past hundred years of sound wildlife conservation efforts (at the cost of hundreds of millions of sportsman dollars). And those wolves are now at out-of-control numbers, and they are dealing a death blow to elk, moose, deer and other big game populations in many areas of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.
Beers says another use of “your” excise tax dollars was to construct a new Regional USFWS Office in California.
Congress had already turned down funding for both these projects - so USFWS took it upon themselves to dip deeply into Pittman-Robertson funds to finance these projects...without any authorization whatsoever. And if these two misappropriations of funds is not enough of a slap in the face to the sportsmen who provided those monies, USFWS also used “your” money to establish a “slush fund” to provide bonuses for Director Clark, division chiefs, and managers at federal and regional levels. And they rewarded themselves well. Those who had excelled at their jobs generally received $25,000 to $30,000. But even those who only mustered a mediocre rating in how they performed their responsibilities usually received a bonus of around $5,000. What the heck, it was free money...so why not?
(I followed all of this back in the late 1990s, and I remember that some of the Pittman-Robertson monies that were wrongfully taken from hunters and fishermen were even used to reimburse USFWS employees for relocation expenses. T.B.)
So, what did Jim Beers receive for being so honest and forthright? How about a forced retirement, and once again the threat of losing benefits if he kept the spotlight on this issue. In fact, he was offered a payoff to keep quiet about it for three years. He took the money. Still, he kept researching elements of the Wolf Recovery Project that were handled improperly. Following are some issues which he says are in violation of the law:
*Unauthorized taking of Pittman-Robertson funds to finance projects (and bonuses) that did not qualify.
*That Wolf Recovery Project coordinator Ed Bangs failed to file an appropriate and accurate Environmental Impact Statement. Beers says Bangs purposely ignored all established wolf science and research, dismissing known wolf depredation impact to wildlife & livestock, and he ignored the dangers of the parasites and diseases carried which are a threat to other wildlife, livestock, pets and to humans (Beers claims that wolves carry 30 known parasites & diseases - most of which are a danger to humans). He says Ed Bangs ignored published historic record of wolf impact and health/safety issues.
*Ed Bangs failed to file Form 3-177, which is required for importation of any wildlife or fish species, including wolves. The form requires declaration of the number being brought into the country, and the species/subspecies being brought into the country. Beers says there is no record of the mandatory form ever being filed.
*That for USFWS to go ahead and “find funding elsewhere” for constructing the California Regional Office, and to fund the introduction of wolves even after the projects had been turned down by Congress is a violation of the agency’s authority.
*That USFWS wrongfully supplemented federal funds with private money to introduce wolves. (Even if approved by Congress, federal budgets cannot by supplemented with private contributions from companies or organizations - or with monies misappropriated from other federal project funds.)
*Beers also claims that for USFWS to allow Defenders of Wildlife to reimburse livestock producers for the loss of stock to wolves, but for them not to reimburse for the loss of wildlife or not to reimburse for the loss of a pet or not to reimburse for losses/injury to humans caused by wolves violates the equal treatment outlined by the Constitution.
While as much as $70-million dollars was robbed from Pittman-Robertson funds, and used to fund non Congress approved projects, very little (nothing) was done to investigate this crime - or exactly where all of that money went. USFWS was, at that time, pushing a non-hunting agenda (and still does today). Likewise, so were most all state wildlife agencies. Beers feels that much of the missing millions ended up funding bird watching areas, hiking trails and like projects in many states - even though the money had been collected from hunting and fishing gear sales, and was supposed to go right back into game and fisheries habitat improvement.
Not one state wildlife agency demanded that USFWS replace the stolen money - and not one person involved was ever tried for such grand theft.
read more: http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/fraud/us_government/news.php?q=1295973697 (http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/fraud/us_government/news.php?q=1295973697)
Post by: Gringo31 on November 17, 2014, 01:40:20 PM
Hopefully.....it matters.
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 17, 2014, 01:51:26 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on November 17, 2014, 01:52:21 PM
Post by: Special T on November 18, 2014, 02:14:37 PM
The Tinder Box: How Politicallly Correct Ideology Destroyed the U.S Forest Service by Christopher Burchfield
I Have Read it, Logger has read it and bought several copies for friends, and YOU should read it. To me it shows how the road to hell was paved with good intentions, and facilitated the change from real hands on management to the management at the desk for the USFS
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 18, 2014, 02:46:17 PM
Post by: RadSav on November 18, 2014, 02:59:07 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 18, 2014, 03:08:04 PM
I read this a couple of years ago. It makes me sick what the crooks in our government are getting away with and bilking us for.yeah, how she funneled the money to the wolf project while head of USFWS to make a 'successful' wolf intro that led her to move to the private sector as head of Defenders. >:(
Post by: jasnt on November 18, 2014, 04:04:26 PM
:puke:
:puke:
Post by: Alchase on November 18, 2014, 08:04:13 PM
No way!
Over Twenty Four hours and our local wolf simpathizers have not justified the pro-wolf actions?
Post by: wolfbait on November 18, 2014, 08:31:17 PM
What?
No way!
Over Twenty Four hours and our local wolf simpathizers have not justified the pro-wolf actions?
Too much info. :tup: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on November 18, 2014, 08:58:28 PM
http://wolfeducationinternational.com/ (http://wolfeducationinternational.com/)
http://wolfeducationinternational.com/author/james-beers/ (http://wolfeducationinternational.com/author/james-beers/)
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.
Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting
Post by: bearpaw on November 18, 2014, 09:05:36 PM
July 7, 2008
Quote
Bonnie Kline is still employed as computer specialist in the Interior Department's US Fish and Wildlife Service but she has been "drydesked" or not allowed to work. Since then she has been depending on the financial support of friends while battling the federal government in a case of alleged harassment filed under federal whistleblower laws.
With her security clearance and expertise, Kline had access to essentially all available computer records in her department, including those sought by investigators seeking evidence in the case of USFWS whistleblower James Beers.
Quote
Under the Federal Aid Program, funds collected through excise taxes on hunting and fishing products were to be used for conservation programs among individual states.
Instead, officials allegedly diverted the money to so-called slush funds. According to Beers, USFWS officials plotted with animal rights groups to undermine the hunting and fishing conservation efforts of the agency's employees.
Kline testified in a recent congressional hearing that senior officials at the USFWS headquarters in Arlington, Virginia escorted her onto a private balcony on June 17, 1998 to coerce her to not cooperate with an investigation into the agency's suspect spending habits.
During that impromptu meeting, Kline's bosses allegedly threatened to destroy her career if she cooperated with OSC investigators or if she responded to a subpoena issued by Congress in Beers' case, which also drew the attention of Rep. Don Young (R-AK). Young is chairman of the House Resources Committee that has direct oversight of the USFWS.
"I was told that the subject of the investigation was extremely serious and 'went right to the top.' I was not to allow myself to be involved in these matters in any way," Kline said. "I was then offered a substantial pay increase if I moved to another job immediately, but without my security access and access to Fish & Wildlife Service communications. And to this date I am still denied that access."
Kline ignored the threats and chose to cooperate with OSC investigators, prompting USFWS officials to seek retribution, according to Kline.
On August 7, 1998 Kline found a note on her desk insinuating physical harm. "I then discovered at that point that all of my e-mail pass codes were gone and the code to the safe storing the secured communications and back-up tapes of communications had been changed," Kline testified before Congress.
When it became apparent that her livelihood was at stake, Kline sought legal protection and representation from the OSC, just as Beers had done.
Kline said the retribution she suffered ruined her health and destroyed her "hard-earned financial credit and reputation." Kline said her two children are "confused and frightened" by the punishment she received in return for her honesty. Kline said she has been forced to live below the federal government's definition of the poverty level.
Kline said she has been subjected to "continuous threatening verbal and physical gestures and bullying" from her supervisors. "I am constantly subjected to humiliating remarks by my supervisor in front of my friends and fellow employees, including disparaging remarks about my clothing and physical appearance."
USFWS officials have allegedly ignored orders from administrative court judge Bruce Johnson that reprimand letters be "rescinded and removed and expunged" from her personnel file.
read more here: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/interior-department-whistleblower-nearly-driven-poverty (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/interior-department-whistleblower-nearly-driven-poverty)
Post by: bearpaw on November 18, 2014, 09:25:54 PM
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1999/9/29/daily-digest (https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1999/9/29/daily-digest)
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Daily Digest/House Committee Meetings
[Daily Digest]
[Pages D1056-D1059]
[[Page D1057]]
OVERSIGHT--FEDERAL AID PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE; SUBPOENA AUTHORITY
Committee on Resources: Continued oversight hearings on the Federal Aid
Programs administrated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Part II).
Testimony
[[Page D1058]]
was heard from Barry Hill, Associate Director, Energy, Resources and
Science, GAO; James Beers, Wildlife Biologist, Division of Federal Aid,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior; and a
public witness.
The Committee also approved a motion granting Chairman Young
authority to issue such subpoenas as he may deem necessary in relation
to an inquiry into the administration and execution of the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnston Sport Fish
Restoration Act and into the expenditure and maintenance of certain
funds under these and other Acts administrated by the Fish and Wildlife
Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior; including the authority
to require by subpoena the testimony of Assistant Interior Secretary
Donald J. Barry at a future hearing before the Committee, and the
production of other materials related to the inquiry.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 18, 2014, 09:55:55 PM
Even if its all one big conspiracy and crime perpetrated by a bunch of crooks...how does it matter for future wolf management? Are wolves going to be de-listed in Washington because we now know that USFWS MIGHT have used the wrong color of money in executing their congressionally authorized activities? :chuckle: I think its swell if folks want to pursue this and spend their time looking at ways to improve red tape process that doesn't mean jack in the real world...maybe USFWS should have used a different appropriation or sought additional appropriations from Congress (which they would have received)...either way, wolves would still be here.
Post by: bearpaw on November 18, 2014, 10:13:16 PM
While I'm all for making sure my tax dollars are used appropriately I get the impression that some of you perhaps think wolf re-introduction would not have happened if only Jim Beers had blown the whistle sooner? You all do realize wolf re-introduction planning started in the 1980's and was supported and approved by Congress?...I just don't really see why any of this matters from a wolf perspective...a federal bureaucracy issue with minor implications...ok...but a real wildlife management issue? Not even close.
Even if its all one big conspiracy and crime perpetrated by a bunch of crooks...how does it matter for future wolf management? Are wolves going to be de-listed in Washington because we now know that USFWS MIGHT have used the wrong color of money in executing their congressionally authorized activities? :chuckle: I think its swell if folks want to pursue this and spend their time looking at ways to improve red tape process that doesn't mean jack in the real world...maybe USFWS should have used a different appropriation or sought additional appropriations from Congress (which they would have received)...either way, wolves would still be here.
backpeddling a little eehh....
The only reason I went to the trouble of locating all this info at this point is because of your incessant statements and misinformation that wolves were not an illegal introduction. I have publicly proven how funds were stolen illegally and then used to plant wolves. It's sad that not one state challenged the theft of millions in funds from the states and that USFWS was allowed to treat the whistleblowers the way they did. I also think it's sad that you don't even seem to care that millions were illegally diverted from fish and wildlife management by a government agency that is supposed to serve the people and that honest employees were mistreated, unfortunately that says something. :(
Looking forward we need to educate people on the damage done by wolves so we can manage them someday in this state. I just made a $50 donation to help keep up the billboards in Spokane. I'm hoping others will join the effort. :tup:
Washington Residents against wolves
http://waraw.org/ (http://waraw.org/)
DONATE PAGE
Click on the link (in green) below to make a donation to WARAW through PayPal. We are an all-volunteer organization that uses our time and financial resources to promote proper management of the wolf for the betterment of all Washingtonians.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=8VUGPJJYVB6LC
The billboard that is up in four locations in Spokane:
Post by: Hilltop123 on November 18, 2014, 10:21:39 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on November 18, 2014, 10:30:18 PM
For you to try and characterize the massive re-introduction effort as being illegal on what is a very minor nuance which has NEVER BEEN PROVEN...that would be akin to saying the Seahawks didn't actually win the superbowl last year because the refs THOUGHT that one of the game balls maybe was under inflated by one psi. Well by golly, technically I guess maybe the game should have been stopped or something...and Broncos fans will have something to cry about...but everyone else would say...you lost 43-8...shut up and go home. :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on November 19, 2014, 02:51:31 AM
It does not matter how many times info. is posted proving time after time the history of the wolf introduction, according to the pro-wolf crowd without a picture it is "UNPROVEN allegations." When picture and documentation is provide they still come up with "UNPROVEN allegations".
Takes quite a bit of weaseling to wipe out 18 years.
Thank you for taking the time to look the info. up and posting it for the rest of the people on W-H who aren't wearing blinders. :tup: :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on November 19, 2014, 05:18:03 AM
Bearpaw - The United States Congress, 2 Federal Courts, and The President of the United States across 3 administrations and all of their Secretaries of Interior put in place the funding, documents, framework, plans, legal opinions/judgements etc. for re-introduction and recovery of Gray Wolves in the NRM states. That is a fact you need to acknowledge before even possibly beginning to discuss whatever rounding error Mr. Beers found in his UNPROVEN allegations.
For you to try and characterize the massive re-introduction effort as being illegal on what is a very minor nuance which has NEVER BEEN PROVEN...that would be akin to saying the Seahawks didn't actually win the superbowl last year because the refs THOUGHT that one of the game balls maybe was under inflated by one psi. Well by golly, technically I guess maybe the game should have been stopped or something...and Broncos fans will have something to cry about...but everyone else would say...you lost 43-8...shut up and go home. :chuckle:
You are incorrect again, just admit that congress did not authorize the illegal funding of wolf introduction using stolen P-R funds. :rolleyes:
But, I see exactly how it is, as long as the end result suits your narrative it doesn't matter what injustices occurred to get there! You will only come back with some rhetoric that wolf introduction was going to happen one way or another so it doesn't matter what laws were broken, what dedicated P-R funding was stolen, or what honest employees were mistreated.
Your apathy of this affair are a testament to why certain agencies and leaders can get away with such illegal, unconstitutional, activities in this country. Yes, looking forward we are stuck with wolves and we need to concentrate on getting them delisted. That doesn't negate the corruption and illegal actions that have occurred in the process. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on November 19, 2014, 07:03:15 AM
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 (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.
Post by: Special T on November 19, 2014, 07:04:54 AM
ID never got its proper importation permits to bring wolves in. I guess im still baffled by this one since there is PLENTY of documentation you MUST have to bring livestock across the border.
With most things political it is VERY hard to trust the word of Gov official. The main reason is accountability. Some things can be undone when the Politician or Gov employees is fired. The reason why "wolves" is such a hot button issue is because it cannot be undone. Even if Wa, ID MT, WY etc allowed massive trapping and shooting year round we still couldn't get rid of all the wolves even if we wanted to.
I think we have been Slow Played (to borrow a poker term). We have been suckered in with promises, Management goals, & Compensation. While there have been a few that saw this danger from the start the population as a whole is still unconcerned. Wa residents will realize its folly much later than ID & MT where they rely much more on out of state hunters footing the bill.
I don't need to believe in some grand conspiracy to prove these points. Gov has adopted the bait and switch on an almost wholesale level. It will continue to get worse as funds get tighter eliminating the ability keep deception hidden.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 19, 2014, 07:28:11 AM
Post by: Special T on November 19, 2014, 09:30:14 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 19, 2014, 09:38:54 AM
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 (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.
I will repeat:
Quote
You are incorrect again, just admit that congress did not authorize the illegal funding of wolf introduction using stolen P-R funds. :rolleyes:
But, I see exactly how it is, as long as the end result suits your narrative it doesn't matter what injustices occurred to get there! You will only come back with some rhetoric that wolf introduction was going to happen one way or another so it doesn't matter what laws were broken, what dedicated P-R funding was stolen, or what honest employees were mistreated.
Your apathy of this affair are a testament to why certain agencies and leaders can get away with such illegal, unconstitutional, activities in this country. Yes, looking forward we are stuck with wolves and we need to concentrate on getting them delisted. That doesn't negate the corruption and illegal actions that have occurred in the process. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on November 19, 2014, 09:46:52 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 19, 2014, 09:57:24 AM
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.
Post by: buckfvr on November 19, 2014, 10:03:59 AM
Post by: Special T on November 19, 2014, 10:06:37 AM
In the ID time line it even states that the population was experimental and NOT Necessary! Which is kind of ironic that ID has spent so much time on this, when they could have nipped it inthe bud a long time ago.
Overall I must say that Im really disapointed in ID, and MT I thought the people that lived there had more sand. Id has a reputation for being feircly independent and telling the Feds to pound sand... WY was never in my mind as a great state that embraced local control, freedom, and property rights.
Post by: Special T on November 19, 2014, 10:07:58 AM
I just wished you'd have left him nuked, Dale...............he makes me so sick and angry I hardly ever come around anymore..................afraid of what I may say.
Having him and MJ around are actually good for the debate. You dont want to sing to the Choir all the time, and We need willing punching bags! :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on November 19, 2014, 10:29:40 AM
:rolleyes: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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 19, 2014, 11:06:22 AM
Post by: jasnt on November 19, 2014, 10:14:52 PM
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 (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
Post by: idahohuntr on November 19, 2014, 11:18:09 PM
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" :chuckle:
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.
Post by: bearpaw on November 19, 2014, 11:48:55 PM
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" :chuckle:
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. :chuckle:
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.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 19, 2014, 11:56:53 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 20, 2014, 12:17:34 AM
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 (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.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 20, 2014, 12:36:05 AM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on November 20, 2014, 12:58:55 AM
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! :dunno:
http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/PittmanRobertsonFacts.pdf (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.
Post by: bearpaw on November 20, 2014, 01:13:59 AM
http://www.fws.gov/budget/2013/PDF%20Files%20FY%202013%20Greenbook/24.%20Wildlife%20Restoration.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/budget/2013/PDF%20Files%20FY%202013%20Greenbook/24.%20Wildlife%20Restoration.pdf)
Post by: bearpaw on November 20, 2014, 01:22:03 AM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/50/part-80/subpart-H (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/50/part-80/subpart-H)
50 CFR Part 80, Subpart H - General Grant Administration
Post by: bearpaw on November 20, 2014, 01:28:13 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_restoration/ (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.
Post by: RadSav on November 20, 2014, 02:33:49 AM
Everything I read here says funds go to the states!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/50/part-80/subpart-H (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 :dunno: 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.
Post by: turkeyfeather on November 20, 2014, 06:32:04 AM
Idaho- Admit it, your wrong and you just won't admit it. Your like a stubborn 5 yr old.
Post by: bearpaw on November 20, 2014, 06:48:21 AM
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. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on November 20, 2014, 08:49:43 AM
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.I prefer red-headed step child :chuckle: 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.
Idaho- Admit it, your wrong and you just won't admit it. Your like a stubborn 5 yr old.
Post by: Bob33 on November 20, 2014, 08:57:04 AM
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2000/letter-to-nra-members-concerning-the-pi.aspx?s=%22Hunting%2FConservation%22&st=&ps= (http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2000/letter-to-nra-members-concerning-the-pi.aspx?s=%22Hunting%2FConservation%22&st=&ps=)
Post by: RadSav on November 20, 2014, 11:36:55 AM
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.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 20, 2014, 11:49:31 AM
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!
Post by: RadSav on November 20, 2014, 12:19:28 PM
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 :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on November 20, 2014, 09:18:00 PM
Just go work for USFWS when you graduate...they can pay off your student loans by diverting funds from theirIt 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 :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on November 21, 2014, 12:32:30 AM
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= (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"... :chuckle:
Quote
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
Post by: RadSav on November 21, 2014, 01:31:39 AM
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 :chuckle:
Post by: LeviD1 on November 21, 2014, 01:48:23 AM
Post by: RadSav on November 21, 2014, 01:52:46 AM
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.
Post by: Special T on November 21, 2014, 06:42:20 AM
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.
Post by: Curly on November 21, 2014, 08:11:34 AM
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.
Post by: fireweed on November 21, 2014, 08:29:31 AM
Post by: RadSav on November 21, 2014, 08:57:54 AM
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 :dunno:
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.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 21, 2014, 09:03:40 AM
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?
Post by: RadSav on November 21, 2014, 09:25:35 AM
I am planning on taking this article to the ATA show and give it to Jay McAninch asking for his help in finding related information. I'll have a second copy just in case I run into Paul Ryan too. Though I have not seen him in a while. From the bowhunting side I expect those two will give me the best leads to solid evidence...if it exists! Which from what I can find so far sounds like it does, somewhere. I just haven't found the formal print.
Post by: Bob33 on November 21, 2014, 09:41:17 AM
Which from what I can find so far sounds like it does, somewhere.Check Lois Lerner's hard drive. :tup:
Post by: RadSav on November 21, 2014, 10:07:47 AM
Which from what I can find so far sounds like it does, somewhere.Check Lois Lerner's hard drive. :tup:
:chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on November 21, 2014, 10:27:38 AM
There are multiple inclusions that clearly state Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration funds are to used for huntable and fishable species as well as species that are not hunted or fished. So none of those arguments really hold much water. I tried to the best of my ability to find specifics related to the actual Wolf Introduction. The information pool is Extremely small! Although most misappropriated funds in every political arena are kept rather hush, hush until the media is willing to run with a story.
I am planning on taking this article to the ATA show and give it to Jay McAninch asking for his help in finding related information. I'll have a second copy just in case I run into Paul Ryan too. Though I have not seen him in a while. From the bowhunting side I expect those two will give me the best leads to solid evidence...if it exists! Which from what I can find so far sounds like it does, somewhere. I just haven't found the formal print.
Thank you for your research on this issue :tup: :tup:
Post by: lhedquist13 on November 23, 2014, 10:45:36 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 26, 2014, 04:37:45 PM
Bearpaw...thank you for your donation. Ready for round 2?
Glad to see you guys doing this, education is the best method! Keep us posted on what your group is doing. :tup: