"Red Wolf" restoration scandal

So the DOW could cut the FAT from their budget and be able to fund the "Red Wolf" all by itself, on their own private land. Between Mrs. Jamie $330,000 Falsereport Clark and former president Rodger $308,000 Slick Schlickeisen that would be a great start. Since now there's only 50 wolves remaining in the wild that should be enough to cover it.

That would be a perfect opportunity for them to put their money where their mouth is.

Jamie Rappaport Clark "Wants" Your Property Rights after "Taking" Your Conservation $




Dear NRA Member:

In March I mailed a letter to many NRA members concerning the scandal over how the Fish and Wildlife Service was managing the two cherished conservation trust funds that sportsmen helped to create. The trust funds are the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration fund (known as the Pittman-Robertson fund) and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration fund (known as the Dingell-Johnson or Wallop-Breaux fund) both of which channel revenue collected from excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, and fishing tackle to state fish and wildlife agencies for conservation projects. By law, the Service is allowed to use a percentage of those funds to cover overhead costs incurred by its Federal Aid office in managing the two trust funds for the states.

Earlier, the March issue of our magazines carried an article entitled "Betrayal of Trust" that discussed the outcome of Congressional investigations over the Service`s use of these "administrative funds" and the Congressional hearings that were held by NRA Board Member, Congressman Don Young (R-AK) who also chairs the House Committee on Resources. Additionally, the NRA-ILA website under the title "In the Hunter`s Interest" has been carrying an updated story about this issue.

The Director of the Service wrote a letter dated April 10 and has posted it on the Service`s website in response to the tens of thousands of postcards you mailed expressing outrage over how the Service was using the money. There are numerous statements in that letter contradicting what I wrote to you. I have posted a link to Director Clark`s letter on our website along with this response.

The Director`s letter notes that the Government [sic] Accounting Office audited the Service`s Federal Aid program and found management shortcomings, but the letter objects to allegations that these funds were "diverted, abused, stolen, or that any illegality has occurred." What the letter does not tell you is how the General Accounting Office (GAO) characterized those shortcomings in testimony before Congress.

GAO labeled the Federal Aid program, in terms of basic accounting practices to track expenditures, "one of the worst managed programs we have ever encountered." GAO testified that in each area where administrative funds were used, there were problems. These included ineffective management oversight, inadequate internal controls, and inadequate policies and procedures. GAO told the House Resources Committee that these conditions spawned "a culture of permissive spending."

GAO uncovered a system by which the Service used administrative funds to support its own projects. Calling it a "shell game," GAO said that the Service charged the Federal Aid program a disproportionate amount to pay for Service-wide overhead costs (phones, electricity, rent) which freed up money in other departments to pay for projects that the Service could not fund with dollars Congress appropriated. The last bullet point of the Director`s letter states that no trust fund money was used to fund endangered species projects. However, GAO`s testimony revealed that some of the money freed up in this "shell game" was used for the reintroduction of the gray wolf.

The Director`s letter takes offense with my use of the term"slush fund" to describe the Director`s Conservation Fund and the Administrative Grant Program. While I would like to take credit for that term, it was first used by the Chairman and other members of the House Resources Committee to describe the Conservation Fund that was created without Congressional authorization. By law, funds in excess of administrative overhead are to be made available to the states. Early in the Clinton Administration, the then-Director created the Conservation Fund that used excess administrative funds to pay for conservation-related projects at the Director`s discretion, without input from the states or the sportsmen whose money it is.

Another program called the Administrative Grant Program was created in the previous administration to fund projects that would benefit the majority of the states, but was allowed to continue in spite of objections raised by organizations like the NRA over the legality of the program. Furthermore, the GAO testified that the administrative funds had been used to pay for relocation costs of employees, foreign travel, and other expenses not attributed to the cost of directly managing the funds as the law requires.

I leave it to you, the NRA member, to decide if GAO`s testimony before the House Resources Committee revealed spending by the Service that can accurately be characterized as diversion, abuse, theft and use of a "slush fund.".

Although the Director`s letter states that the Service is working diligently with its partners in the "States and conservation community to address these" shortcomings, no organization including the NRA was invited to the table when the Service organized a review team with the state wildlife agencies to look at reform measures. It was only after the NRA and other organizations like the National Wildlife Federation took issue with the closed-door approach of the Service that conservation organizations were invited by the states, not by the Service, to provide comments on the proposed reforms.

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

(Link no longer active)U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Jamie Rappaport Clark`s Letter to NRA members

For more information see the article written by ILA Executive Director Jim Baker entitled "Betrayal of Trust"that appeared in the March issue of the American Hunter.

For copies of testimony from the hearings and for Committee press releases, log on to the House Resources Committeewebsite.

For a copy of the bill log onto the Library of Congress web site and search for H.R. 3671.

How It Occurred -

How Legal Was The Introduction Of Wolves And How Hunters & Anglers Paid The Bill-

- Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director USFWS (2000)

- Jamie Rappaport Clark, CEO Defenders of Wildlife & Plaintiff (2015)

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.

Inside The USFWS - Corruption, Intimidation and Threats




Inside The USFWS - Corruption, Intimidation and Threats...

The Jamie Rappaport Clark Era-- "Culture or Conservation"... You decide...


Federal contractors say Clinton administration officials threatened to retaliate against them if they didn't go along with a cover-up of potentially incriminating e-mails linked to assorted Clinton scandals. Bonnie Kline, an employee of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), knows just what it's like.

A former computer-security expert at the agency, Miss Kline has had to endure a seemingly endless campaign of harassment and threats following her cooperation with a federal investigation of the agency. The stress has forced her onto medical leave, and the agency nominally responsible for protecting federal employees against such abuses, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), has yet to complete a nearly two-year investigation into her case thanks to agency stalling tactics this from an administration that considers itself a friend of women.

Why? Congressional investigators believe agency officials feared that Miss Kline, a computer specialist, had access to e-mails involving dubious expenditures that could, and ultimately did, prove embarrassing to the agency. She was also a friend of another agency whistleblower, Jim Beers, who later helped the House Resources Committee track down those expenditures.


Her problems began in mid-1998 when USFWS officials unexpectedly dragged her into a meeting in which they warned her not to cooperate with federal investigators who had come to ask her how long agency e-mails and back-up tapes were stored. Miss Kline's superiors also wanted to know if it were possible to erase e-mails from the agency's systems, she says. She liked her job, and the agency apparently liked the way she did it, having honored her repeatedly for excellent performance. She felt obliged to cooperate with investigators, however, and the officials promptly carried out their threats.

They contrived excuses to reprimand her and to strip her job responsibilities from her. They isolated her at a hallway desk and made not-so-veiled threats against her. A federal hearing examiner ordered the reprimand rescinded and, further, insisted that the agency provide Miss Kline, a single mother, with a "safe work environment." Said the examiner, her supervisor, Louis Irwin, "was on the point of being out of control" in his dealings with her.

Miss Kline said that after testifying before the Resources Committee, a fellow employee threw a telephone at her, only narrowly missing her. When Miss Kline filed a complaint against the employee, the U.S. government actually substituted itself for the defendant in the case on grounds that the phone thrower was acting in the performance of her duties. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Miss Kline can't file a complaint against the government, and the court dismissed her case. Now on medical leave without pay, she says, "I am physically and financially destroyed."

And what is the Clinton administration, ally of feminists and foe of sexual harassment, doing about all this? Fish & Wildlife Service Director Jamie Rappaport Clark has serenely ignored Miss Kline's problems, saying she won't do anything to resolve them until apparently endless investigations into them by the OSC and the inspector general of USFWS' parent agency, the Department of the Interior (DOI), are complete. In a Feb. 15 letter to House Resource Committee Chairman Don Young, Mrs. Clark wrote, "[W]e feel the Service has acted within its personnel authority in addressing Miss Kline's employment issues." A spokesman for the OSC says it held up its investigation for more than a year because DOI officials in the solicitor's office said they were trying to reach a settlement with Miss Kline. Only there weren't any settlement negotiations going on. They were stalling.

Miss Kline undoubtedly made things worse for herself when she dared to testify about her treatment during committee hearings that turned out to be a major embarrassment to USFWS and Mrs. Clark. According to documents uncovered by congressional staff and an environmental watchdog group, the National Wilderness Institute, Fish & Wildlife officials were diverting excise tax revenues set aside for improvements in fish and wildlife habitat into recreational pursuits for agency staff, among them: liquor, jaunts to foreign capitals, an unauthorized slush fund for Mrs. Clark and more.

An investigation by the General Accounting Office into allegations of agency waste and abuse noted that "the combined experience of the audit team that did this work represents about 160 years worth of audit experience. To our knowledge, this is, if not the worst, one of the worst managed programs we have encountered." Don't take GAO's word for it though. Consider that the full House has just rushed through a reform measure on a vote of 422-2. (Democrats Maxine Waters and Jesse Jackson Jr. opposed it.)

To the extent that Miss Kline contributed to this outcome, she should be rewarded, not punished. USFWS should compensate her for what it has put her through, and Congress should see that this nominally female-friendly administration does so.

Neil Hutt Chair, Red Wolf Coilition - Gets "Caught" Trying to "Suppress" the "Horror"




[video=youtube;GcqQtGTu-v0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GcqQtGTu-v0#t=8[/video]


03/13/2012 07:16 AM

To David_Rabon@fws.gov,
From kwheeler@redwolves.com
cc
bcc
Subject

Re: Just to be clear. . .

I hate to be a nag, but I got a phone call last night from someone who
used to be on the IWC board who saw that video (nearly 15,000 views). This
individual is not against live-trapping canids for the recovery program.
In fact, he is a biologist himself, lives in the UP of Michigan, and is an
avid elk hunter.

I explained the trappers have to be certified and the need for having
trappers out there because there is so much private land in the
restoration area. The caller understood all that and also had no problem
with what Joey said, although he thought Joey was speaking for the
Service.

The problem is with the fact that while Joey is talking the wolf is
struggling and grimacing, and Joey is taking no steps to subdue the animal
gently so there is no further injury to the foot. Additionally, this
caller asked if the trapper was using modified traps (offset jaws,
padding), and I had to say I didn't know.

My point is that this video IS a problem in terms of public relations. I
am bracing for the emails from RWC supporters. That might not happen, but
if Wolfwatcher saw it (they brought my attention to it through Maggie
Howell of the Wolf Conservation Center in New York, an SSP facility for
the Mexican and the red wolf), other people are going to see it.

Can't Joey simply be told to take that video DOWN since he is being paid
to trap for the recovery program? He is invoking the recovery program as
though he were being paid to make the film, David. My Michigan friend
asked if the recovery team had sponsored that video!!! YIKES!!!

Neil

David_Rabon@fws.gov, kwheeler@redwolves.com

Subject

Re: Just to be clear. . .

Good idea to look into this. Joey can post whatever he wants whether we
like it or not - BUT the fact that he invokes the recovery program and
goes on and on about trapping for the Service is getting some heat (two
emails yesterday about it).

The RWC understands the need to live-trap the wolves and coyotes and
hybrids. However, the public perception of what that involves will turn
into a big backlash if a lot of wolf/coyote fans see this video.

I know, I know - it sounds like I am catering to the bleeding hearts. But unless
people understand the minimal risks of serious injury to a wolf and the
purpose of this activity, you and we are going to take some flak.

ALSO - what kind of trap is that Joey is using? I need to research it. He
does identify it by name.

Neil

https://youtu.be/OPiMTsmjz8Q?t=2m49s

Isn't that the truth!! The exceptions would be Stewart Pimm, Robert Wayne and I'm beginning to think David Mech.

Academia Fraud = Felony

Exposing the RAID of "YOUR" Conservation Funds--



Who is the Plaintiff??

Defenders of Wildlife CEO, Jamie Rappaport Clark & Past USFWS Director -



Yes, She's suing to further "Erode" YOUR Private Property Rights!!

Betrayal Of Trust, Parts I of II

Since 1937, sportsmen have paid taxes on firearms and ammunition, trusting their dollars would go to the states to buy land, manage wildlife, train hunters, and build ranges. But now, a congressional investigation has found this "sportsmen's trust fund" is being misused by the Clinton-Gore Administration, which even tried to fund a group working to ban hunting.

Citizen anger over government abuse of taxes was the catalyst that ignited the American Revolution, and good-natured grousing about how our government spends tax dollars has been a traditional part of our history ever since.

Seldom have citizens enthusiastically supported a tax of any type, but the excise taxes collected from hunters and fishermen under two laws set up to enhance the populations and habitats of game animal and sport fish species have been a remarkable success story in wildlife conservation. Beginning in 1937, hunters and shooters have willingly paid excise taxes of 10 and 11 percent on new firearms and ammunition, confident in the knowledge that the funds would be spent directly on wildlife and habitat conservation.

That was before Bill Clinton and Al Gore came to the White House and fast outpaced all other previous presidential administrations combined in their attacking the rights of gun owners and hunters. Now, this White House has "spawned a culture of permissive spending" of tax dollars supposedly earmarked to serve the outdoorsmen who pay those revenues, according to one General Accounting Office (GAO) investigator who recently testified before Congress.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has misappropriated at least $45 million in excise tax funds set aside for game conservation, turning the special accounts into cash cows for pet projects of the Clinton-Gore Administration.

According to a GAO report and at House Resources Committee hearings, this latest funding scandal is a Clintonesque twist on another type of "wildlife," with conservation tax dollars paying for trips to Brazil, Holland, and Japan, and reimbursement for lavish meals, liquor, and limousine rentals.

In at least one instance, pressure was applied to an employee of the FWS to fund a grant proposal submitted by a zealous animal-rights group, The Fund for Animals, which is dedicated to the elimination of the very hunting heritage that those monies are collected to support.

The top land-acquisition priority for the FWS for fiscal 1999, according to Service spokeswoman Barbara Maxfield, was the purchase of an island to be set aside as a national wildlife refuge. The Clinton-Gore Administration proposed using $30 million in Duck Stamp fees and hunting excise tax revenues to buy Palmyra Atoll, located 1,000 miles south of Hawaii, populated by 10 ducks.

That's right, 10 ducks. The administration wanted to devote an enormous sum of hunters' dollars to buy an island virtually no one could reach, where hunting is banned, to help 10 ducks.

"While I value birds as much as anyone, $3 million a duck seems high," quipped U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), an NRA Board Member and avid hunter who chairs the House Resources Committee, which has held hearings to focus public scrutiny on the Clinton-Gore Administration's betrayal of not only hunters, but also of our national wildlife resources.

"I'm appalled that the Clinton Administration would dedicate $30 million to buy a tropical island instead of funding vital conservation programs in our 50 states," said Young, who said the FWS has broken the law by using money mandated for wildlife conservation to set up a "slush fund" for ineligible projects that were nonetheless favored by the White House.

Congressman Don Young(R-AK) has held three hearings into abuses of the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson trust funds. He also introduced legislation, backed by the NRA, to specify exactly how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may and may not spend the excise tax revenues.


That $30 million deal was derailed, due in large part to hearings held by Young's committee. It also prompted outrage from senior Democrats, including U.S. Rep. John Dingell of Michigan. Dingell wrote a sharply worded letter to Secretary Bruce Babbitt of the Department of Interior, which includes the FWS. Dingell, who co-sponsored the Sport Fishing Restoration Act -- also known as the Dingell-Johnson Act -- told Babbitt that he and other Democrats would "vigorously oppose" the purchase. Babbitt scrapped the purchase.

Dingell-Johnson and the Wildlife Restoration Act, better known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, both passed several decades ago with the vigorous support of most advocates of the shooting and fishing sports, including NRA. The laws established excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment -- everything from shotgun shells, game bags, and compound bows to lures, tackle boxes, and boat fuel.

Both laws mandate that revenues generated by these sales be returned to state and local fish and game organizations, both public and private, for programs to manage sport fish and game animal species.

The FWS, which collects and dispenses the tax dollars through various grants, is allowed under the laws to deduct only the cost of administering the programs. Administrative costs are limited to eight percent of the excise taxes collected from anglers and six percent of the special revenues paid by hunters.

The scandal came to light largely through the efforts of one man, James M. Beers, a wildlife biologist and career civil servant with 30 years of experience who was forced into retirement after he refused to approve grants from Pittman-Robertson tax revenues to applicants who were clearly ineligible, such as the anti-hunting group The Fund for Animals.

Funding Anti-Hunters: Your Tax Dollars at Work!
"Hunting is a cowardly act . . . and it does brave men and women no credit. If they would truly think like the animal, hunters would realize this very quickly."
Norm Phelps, Program Coordinator, The Fund for Animals


After Clinton and Gore took office, "I began to see indications of FWS developing duplicity" on the issue of trapping, Beers recalls. The European Community had threatened to ban all fur imports from the U.S. if the federal government did not set up restrictions for leg-hold traps.

Beers was tasked to set up new trapping standards to satisfy the European markets, "a difficult challenge, but one that was worthwhile ... for the trappers, furriers, and even hunters and fishermen who were also threatened by the animal-rights activists who were driving the European fur ban," he testified to Young's committee.

At the same time the Clinton-Gore Administration was assuring state game agencies, trappers, and furriers of support, Beers testified that he was hearing from longtime colleagues about "secret meetings between FWS and animal-rights representatives to ... undercut our efforts." When he questioned his bosses about these unofficial reports, Beers says he was "greeted only with smiles" and denials.

Beers also reviewed grant applications from state governments and private groups for Pittman-Robertson funds. He was designated project officer for 90 percent of the approved projects. He told Young's committee that in 1997 he began to get applications from various groups, including The Fund for Animals, that "wanted to put together and distribute anti-hunting literature" in public schools and other public venues.

Beers refused to approve such grant applications, based on their failure to meet guidelines set forth in the Federal Register. "I was badgered and intimidated to change that finding," he remembers. "On one occasion, I told a manager to fund it if he wanted to, (that) I would not change my recommendation as the regulations required."

A few months later, "I was curtly told I would be moved to a nonexistent, lower-grade job in Massachusetts... . I was locked out of my office, the police came to the building to keep me from entering, and I was threatened in an unmarked envelope left at my front door on a Sunday morning with the loss of my retirement for five years and the loss of my health coverage forever if I did not retire immediately."

Beers did retire, but he didn't stay quiet. After being recognized by the Office of Independent Counsel as a bona fide whistle blower, Beers won a sizable settlement and a letter of apology from the FWS. He has been an instrumental and compelling witness in Congress, and has prompted a new round of GAO scrutiny.

"Many of the problems we identified in our July 1999 testimony" before the House Committee on Resources "were the same as those we identified six years ago," said GAO's Barry T. Hill . "As part of our recent" investigation of FWS, "we found that the Service had not been entirely responsive to our earlier recommendations to correct the management problems we identified in our previous review... .

"We are hopeful, but not confident, that the agency will be committed to implementing planned changes and that the changes will result in lasting improvement. Our lack of confidence is due to the Office of Federal Aid's poor track record in dealing with the identified problems."

After GAO investigators checked files on grants for fiscal years 1993 through 1998, Hill testified that the records "were incomplete, out of date, and disorganized. ... In many instances, we could not track and verify the status of a grant, the amounts authorized for payment, or the time periods in which these expenditures were made."

Part One Continued-

** Part One Continued--

The Bureaucratic Betrayal of Trust

In auditing the "sportsmen's trust fund," the Government Accounting Office found:

"Controls over expenditure, revenues, and grants were inadequate"
"Millions of dollars in program funds couldn't be tracked"
"Basic principles and procedures for managing travel funds weren't followed"
"Basic internal control standards or Office of Management and Budget guidance for maintaining complete and accurate grants files weren't followed"
"Regional offices used administrative funds inconsistently and for purposes that weren't clearly justified"
"Charges for Service-wide overhead may not be accurate"
"Routine audits to determine whether administrative funds were being used for authorized purposes weren't conducted"
"The process for resolving audit findings involving states' use of program funds was questionable"

Source: Testimony of Barry T. Hill, Associate Director for the GAO

What investigators could document was not only outrageous, but also possibly illegal. For instance, the Service used excise tax funds paid by sportsmen to pay for alcoholic beverages -- a violation of federal regulations -- and also reimbursed the costs of single meals that were twice the daily amount allowed by law for a full day of food costs while on travel.

Meanwhile, Service bosses spent tens of thousands of sportsmen's tax dollars on junkets to Tokyo, Rio de Janeiro, and Amsterdam, further reducing funds that should have been returned to the states for wildlife conservation projects. According to law, what is not used for legitimate overhead expenses by FWS must be turned over to the states.

In a letter to the Washington Times, Rob Gordon, director of the National Wilderness Institute, put these egregious abuses in another perspective. To pay $26,000 in travel costs to go to Japan and Brazil, "about 37,000 miles of fishing line had to be sold to generate enough excise taxes" for those trips, "enough to circle the Earth about 1 and 1/2 times."

The FWS federal aid chief spent $32,000 of conservation funds on travel in 18 months, with approval for many of the trips signed by his subordinates, the GAO reported.

Chairman Young is now drafting reform legislation that will not only specify exactly what the FWS can spend the excise taxes on, but also spell out what the Service may not spend such funds on, with the goal of setting a reduced cap on administrative costs.

"The hope is that we will get a bill to the floor of the House by spring," says one Capitol Hill staffer. "In the meantime, we have retained an outside contractor to do an independent audit, because no one is certain yet where all this money has gone."

Several years back, NRA called for a Congressional review of how FWS was spending administrative funds for overhead expenses and expressed concern that special accounts were being set up in violation of the law. NRA has thrown its weight behind Young's much-needed reform bill.

America's hunters, shooters, and anglers deserve a swift Congressional remedy to ensure that our trust cannot be abused again by anti-hunting political appointees burrowed deep within the Clinton-Gore Administration. Future articles will explore this scandal in greater detail, but now is the time to call your Congressman at (202) 225-3121 to urge support for Chairman Young's Pittman-Robertson reform bill.

Part Two will be posted tomm AM!!

Part Two of the Jamie Rappaport Clark P/R Conservation Fund Scandal-

NRA members are strongly urged to contact your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to vote for S.2609, the Senate version of Congressman Young's legislation to safeguard from abuse the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson trusts that your dollars fund. You can e-mail your Senators using the "Write Your Reps" feature at www.nraila.org.
I hear many comments from NRA members, but the one that bothers me the most is the statement that, while that person is resolute in supporting NRA's struggle to safeguard the Second Amendment, he or she doesn't bother to vote, believing that one individual can't make a difference.

Here I hope to prove the fallacy of such cynicism.

On April 5, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 423-2 to pass the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000. It was a desperately needed legislative remedy to the chronic abuse and misappropriation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WS) of two conservation trust funds cherished by hunters and fishermen.

You may have read about this outrageous situation in the March issue, in a special report titled "Betrayal of Trust." This rousing legislative victory is, in large measure, due to individual NRA members whose protests were coordinated in a targeted mailing by your NRA Institute for Legislative Action (ILA).

Getting a bill passed by the House in nine months--from request for records, hearings, bill drafting and committee reports to a full floor vote--seldom happens. But this time, you, the individual NRA member, helped make it happen.

Chaired by Don Young (R-Alaska), who also sits on the NRA Board of Directors, the House Committee on Resources began hearings last summer into allegations of financial finagling by the F&WS. The service oversees two trust funds, which are funded by an excise tax paid every time an angler, archer, hunter or sport shooter buys firearms, related equipment or supplies.

By law, F&WS is supposed to keep only a small percentage of the tax collected, and only to pay for administrative costs. Under the Pittman Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, originally passed in 1937, and similar revenues generated by fishing-related sales under the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950, the bulk of funds is mandated by law to be sent by F&WS to state fish and wildlife agencies to expand habitat and increase sport fish and game populations.

Over the decades, the human population grew, and so did the number of people hunting, fishing and participating in recreational shooting, dramatically increasing the amount of revenue collected from the excise taxes until it equaled a third of the F&WS budget.

Thus, the administrative funds, as a percentage of the total excise taxes collected, became the seeds of temptation that, under the administration of Bill Clinton--who we know has a weakness for temptation--bloomed into yet another scandal. As more and more millions piled up in the two trust funds, "it was like an open vault," one congressional investigator said. "It was an invitation for the system to fail, and hunters and fishermen to be had. You don't need more money to administer a program just because more money is there."

The sad fact is that congressional staffers and financial sleuths from the General Accounting Office (GAO) still aren't sure how much money was diverted, or where it went. One GAO investigator testified that F&WS administration of the trust funds was "one of the worst managed programs we have ever encountered."

Looking at fiscal years 1996-98, GAO and committee staff say $15 million annually, or $45 million, was misappropriated or stolen. If all records were available, the figure could have been much higher.

F&WS bosses used these administrative funds to engage in some budgetary hocus-pocus. In a long-running shell game, funds obligated by law to benefit state fish and wildlife agencies were diverted without congressional approval into accounts to fund pet projects of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, such as reintroduction of the gray wolf--just one reason given for why F&WS staff made an incredible 79 trips to Canada in eight years.

One F&WS executive even referred to one of the illicit accounts in an e-mail read at one congressional hearing as "my slush fund."

What investigators were able to document was bad enough. Among other revelations about inept record-keeping and deceptive accounting schemes were expense and travel vouchers detailing illegal charges for liquor, limousines and lavish meals. F&WS employees made 107 trips to Venezuela, Mexico, Japan, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Brazil, New Zealand, Russia and England. Taxes paid by hunters and fishermen paid for one F&WS official to go to Puerto Rico 17 times in 18 months. Puerto Rico and Atlantic City, N.J., also were popular spots for F&WS bosses to hold meetings, travel documents confirm.

Congressman Young, a member of the NRA Board of Directors, thanks ILA's Jim Baker.

Chairman Young's hearings concluded in October, and by February, the committee drafted and approved a reform measure to stop F&WS funding shenanigans. On April 5, the House voted in near unanimity in favor of the proposed law, aimed at "eliminating waste, fraud, abuse and unauthorized expenditures" within the F&WS. The House bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Passage of the House reform bill was a rousing grassroots victory, not just for NRA members, but for all the nation's hunters and anglers. But the individual effort of each NRA member made a big collective impression. More than 200,000 of your postcards of support were received by the House Resources Committee where one staffer said, "It's the most correspondence we've ever had on any Fish and Wildlife Service issue."

A spokesman at the Department of the Interior, which includes the F&WS, estimated that 65,000 cards of protest were received from irate NRA members. One witness reports 77 trays of your postcards stacked outside the office of Don Barry, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, who oversees the F&WS.

While it's appropriate that we congratulate these members for their success, this is not the time to rest. Our work is not done yet. Victory has been won in the House, but a major battle remains in the Senate. Clinton's and Gore's political cronies running F&WS will seek to persuade their Senate allies to pull the teeth from S.2609--the critical mechanisms that will hold F&WS financially and legally accountable.

Among other corrective measures, Young's bill: 1) sets a strict limit on how much F&WS's federal aid program can charge off as "administrative costs," 2) requires that foreign travel charged to these funds be approved by an assistant secretary in the Department of the Interior--not a F&WS staff subordinate, as happened in at least one case, 3) eliminates the percentage formula in favor of a set dollar amount and 4) requires an ongoing account audit of all F&WS expenditures.

In a response to NRA-ILA's report about the scandal, F&WS Director Jamie Rappaport Clark addressed NRA-ILA supporters on the Service's website, denying that any wrongdoing or illegal conduct occurred. She attributed the accounting discrepancies to "management shortcomings," saying that not a single dollar of hunters' and fishermen's tax money was misspent or lost and that NRA is motivated only by "a partisan political agenda."

Only someone who's been part of the Clinton-Gore team would attempt to characterize an issue decided by a 423-2 congressional vote as "partisan." In my reply to Clark (www.nraila.org under "Letter to NRA Members"), I pointed out that the overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill validates the findings of GAO's audit and other investigations and voices strong approval for reform to be made through the legislative process.

If we are to believe Clark, the problem was not in money lost, but in the reconciliation of records due to a change in the accounting system. F&WS promised Chairman Young that a full accounting would be made by the end of 1999. The Congressman and his committee staff tell me that, almost half way into the year 2000, they are still waiting for all these records.

What we can believe, from Clark's letter, is that F&WS and Interior are still in denial over many aspects of the issues raised by the congressional hearings and the GAO audit. They continue to defend the indefensible. So we can expect to hear more about all this. In the meantime, thanks again to those NRA members who went to the mailbox to be counted.

On November 7, you must be counted again--this time at the ballot box.


The Shameful Abuse of Bonnie Kline

Bonnie Kline

(Continued Below)

(Part 2 - Continued)

If F&WS Director Clark and her Department of the Interior bosses want to restore their lost credibility, they would demand an immediate resolution of the disgraceful case of Bonnie Kline. A computer security specialist at F&WS, Kline testified under oath before Young's committee about threats made to her by her bosses if she did not hide or destroy e-mails sought by investigators--some of the e-mails were sought by the FBI in a criminal probe.

Unaware of the panic among F&WS officials over the escalating investigation, Kline was escorted onto a balcony at the F&WS headquarters in Arlington, Va., by her first- and second-echelon supervisors. She was then threatened with the loss of her job if she cooperated in any way with investigators.

Sitting the single mother of two down in a chair, the men loomed over her. Kline recalls her second-tier boss telling her he had "just received something short of a subpoena. If anybody comes to you, asking for tapes or copies of tapes, you are not to cooperate with any of them. ... You report it immediately to me. ... You do not understand how serious this situation is, and I want you to stay out of it. ... I'm telling you to keep your mouth shut. ... You're going to put your career in jeopardy if you mess with any of this."

"He told me if I went up against him, I would lose," she said recently. Immediately after this conversation, his first-line supervisor called her into his office and offered her a job transfer and promotion, from a GS-11 to a GS-13. She responded that she'd like to see a job description.

Kline, who had received numerous citations and cash awards for her work at F&WS, did not know that, besides the congressional and GAO investigations of financial improprieties at F&WS, the FBI had launched a probe of its own. FBI agents were investigating whether F&WS officials illegally diverted several million dollars in funds appropriated for other purposes to buy land in south Florida in the months leading up to the elections of 1996. The land deals allegedly were made for political purposes that would benefit the Democratic Party in that state.

FBI agents were seeking e-mails in which this alleged funds diversion was discussed. The supervisor who threatened Kline had himself signed an affidavit stating that e-mail back-ups were only kept for three months. When Kline was later contacted by an investigator from the Office of Special Counsel, she told the truth. Old e-mail tapes went back at least 18 months. She signed an affidavit to that effect.

What happened next to Kline can't help reminding one of the ongoing investigation into missing White House e-mails. When congressional investigators and FBI agents looking into allegedly illegal fundraising by, among others, Vice President Al Gore, contract employees at the White House who, like Kline, were custodians of e-mail back-up tapes, said they were threatened by White House staffers with jail if they simply told the truth.

When her F&WS bosses learned that Kline was obeying the law and telling the truth to officials looking into the F&WS scandal, they created a very hostile work environment for her, one in which she was publicly ridiculed and humiliated. A threatening note was left on her desk after her lawyers wrote her bosses. Her computer security access codes were changed without notice, and the e-mail tapes disappeared.

After Kline testified in Congress about wrongdoing at F&WS, including an incident in which her immediate supervisor told her to erase the e-mail tapes with a magnet, something he admitted in a deposition, the open hostility got even worse. One colleague went unpunished after throwing a phone that just missed hitting Kline in the head.

After two letters of reprimand, F&WS thrust Kline into a legal limbo in which she doesn't get paid, but hasn't been fired and consequently can't get another job--all because she told the truth before Congress and to a criminal probe by the FBI and the Office of Special Counsel.

Her two teenage children, straight-A students, don't fully understand why they might be forced to move out of their Northern Virginia townhouse, or why their perpetually nervous mom has to get loans from friends and family just to put food on the table.

Meanwhile, F&WS Director Clark, as evidenced by her letter, must be happy in the knowledge that Bonnie Kline, as a tortured example of what happens to employees who choose right over wrong and embrace truth in the midst of lies, will serve as an example to keep other employees possibly inclined toward truth and justice quiet and in line, intimidated and subjugated.

Congressman Young's work is not yet finished. On April 26, he subpoenaed the Department of the Interior to produce all personnel records, letters, memos and, yes, e-mails, pertaining in any way to Kline. Interior must produce "all records regarding the interaction between the Office of the Solicitor . . . and the Office of Special Counsel," including "documents subject to attorney-client privilege."

The disgraceful story of how the Clinton-Gore Administration treated, and continues to treat, Bonnie Kline will continue to unfold.

The donors to Defenders of Wildlife should expect Jamie Rappaport Clark to continue her swindling ways. It's time for a audit.

Let's now look at exactly where Jamie Rappaport Clark the "Plaintiff" spent Hunters & Anglers Funds...

Yes, she spent "Your" money on Wolves!!

"The intent of the Python Challenge is to engage the public in environmental conservation and invasive species removal," said spokeswoman Carli Segelson. "One of the goals is to make people aware of non-natives and how to report them."

The previous challenge, held in 2013, resulted in the capture of 68 snakes. No one knows how many are out there, but estimates have ranged into the tens of thousands. They feed on rabbits, raccoons, alligators and other wildlife, reducing their numbers and competing with native predators. It seem Florida knows how to handle non-native invasive species, maybe NCWRC can take notes.

[video=youtube;uFnSGiM5H34]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFnSGiM5H34&app=desktop[/video]

Looking for a wolf hunt? Don't forget your passport. http://news.yahoo.com/wolf-hunting-begins-central-sweden-174908390.html
heel

“Don’t tell people the wolves eat deer.” Kelly Davis, former Biologist USFWS pg89

A picture is worth 1000 words -

From:Jett Ferebee <jettferebee@aol.com>

To:d_m_ashe <d_m_ashe@fws.gov>; john_hast <john_hast@doioig.gov>; Secretary_jewell <Secretary_jewell@ios.doi.gov>; many redacted

Date:Tue, Jun 16, 2015 6:18 am

Director Ashe,

I looked for your response to the part one question. Maybe it went to my spam folder. I will check.

Part Two: Just one of many lies told by USFWS, but this one is relevant to our quest to determine the actual canid species captured on my trail cam

As Director of USFWS, why did the USFWS deem it necessary and appropriate to intentionally lie to the citizens of NC?

These lies were documented and published by T. Delene Beeland in her 2013 book "The Secret World of Red Wolves":

- In the beginning, the Fish and Wildlife Service told people that the wolves would not eat deer. It was a partial truth – but also a partial lie. (Beeland) (pg 82)

- In the beginning, Jamin (Simmons) told folks he was “cautiously optimistic: about the program. But later he felt that the red wolf program made a large misstep by telling people that the reintroduced wolves would not eat deer. “As soon as the first wolves were out, people found skeletons or partially eaten ones, and we knew they were eating deer, especially the young ones,” he says. Folks in his community were upset and anxious about the deer herds. It added fodder to the government stigma that the wolves bore and widened the gulf of mistrust. (pg 84)

- As a biologist working at Lake Mattamuskeet, Kelly says her supervisors told her, “Don’t tell people the wolves eat deer.” (Kelly Davis, former biologist at Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge) (pg 84)

​

Maybe USFWS did not lie after all. Perhaps this mixed canine is a non-deer eating variety just returning the fawn to it's mother?

Again, Director Ashe, just feel free to reply to all. I will change my spam settings.

Thanks,
Jett Ferebee
(252) 714-2774














Outer Banks SPCA , Congressman Walter B Jones, Water Jones, Congressman Jones, Joey Hinton, Doc Hastings, House Committee on Natural Resources, Congress, Congressman Doc Hastings, ESA Oversight, Sue and Settle, Sue & Settle, T. Delaene Beeland, The Secret World of Red Wolves, Cornelia N. Hutt, Cornelia Hutt, Red Wolf Coalition, FOX, FOX News, ABC, ABC News, NBC, NBC News, WRAL, WRAL News, Raleigh, Charlotte, Sean Hannity, Bill Oreilly, Bill O'Reilly, The Factor, Megan Kelly, Greta Van Susteren, N&O, News and Observer, Bob Pendergrass, Dan Nicholas Park, Kim Wheeler, Red Wolf Coalition, David Rabon, RWC Board Member, USFWS, Red Wolf, Hybridization, International Wolf Center, Rob Schultz, Nina Fascione, Defenders of Wildlife, ESA, Endangered Species Act, Nonessential Experimental Population, North Carolina, Alligator River Wildlife Refuge, Red Wolf Coordinator, Section 10(j), 5 - Year Summary, Captive Breeding, Reintroduction Area, Coyote, Coywolf, Coywolfs, Coy-wolf, Coywolfs, Predator Control, Service, Take Permit, Adaptive Management, Sterilization, Federal Game Lands, Fish and Wildlife Service, Animal Welfare Institute, Lawsuit, NCWRC, North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, Depredation, 5 County Red Wolf Recovery Area, Hyde County, Beaufort County, Tyrrell County, Dare County, Washington County, Red Wolf Recovery Program, Reward, PHVA 1999, George Amato, Mike Chamberlain, Jennifer Gilbreath, Ed Bangs, Brian Cole, Karen Goodrowe, Karen Beck, Gloria Bell, Dave Flemming, Jack Grisham, Art Beyer, Randy Fulk, Mary Hagedorn, Mike Bryant, Todd Fuller, Phil Hedrick, Onnie Byers, Eric Gese, Gary Henry, Brian Kelly, Phil Miller, John Theberge, Fred Knowlton, Michael Morse, Mary Thebarge, Sue Lindsey, Dennis Murray, Kathy Traylor-Holzer, Chris Lucash, Ron Nowak, Will Waddell, Ford Mauney, Mike Phillips, Bob Wayne, Dave Mech, Ulysses Seal, Kathy Whidbee, Scott McLellan, Doug Smith, Aubrey White, Michael Stoskopf, Paul Wilson, Dan Ashe, Sally Jewell, Department of the Interior, Red Wolf Study, Peer Review, Peer Reviewed, Howlings, Columbia NC, Columbia

Hybrid Hunters, FYI be sure you know the law &amp; abide the rules...




So again NO reporting is required beyond the description referenced (5 County Area).

You always want to ensure your following the letter of the law, and set a good example, likewise it's important to accurately communicate the law with one another. No one should ever set out to specifically and or intentionally cause harm, or lethally take a Red Wolf.

There is no law that I'm aware of prohibiting anyone from intentionally taking a Hybrid however. USFWS has well documented the installation of tracking collars subsequent the hybrids sterilization, thus clearly you could, it seems, proceed with the specific intent to shoot a collared hybrid.

So I guess you could call USFWS and ask them if there is any permit needed to lethally shoot a hybrid as you should always check with the LE Agency

When and if they say no, hybrids are not protected, one would again be well served to let USFWS know you are specifically setting out on your private land to take only a hybrid canid... You know it's a great way for private landowners to participate and support the USFWS published 2013-2015 Adaptive Management Plan.

Should you shoot a Collared Hybrid I do not even see when you have to report it.

So if let's just say, you shot a red wolf and didn't report it within 24 hrs as required ONLY within the 5 county area I see no way USFWS could purse the case, if you truly thought you shot one of the collared hybrids you set out to intentionally shoot.

Raising the obvious question, what fool decided to put collars on Coyotes & Hybrids? This would have NEVER passed a Section 7, for the exact reason stated above!!

I'd strongly suggest you check with USFWS as their far sharper on all of this than our BatCave crowd, as this is the graveyard shift!!

Of great humor is the section that describes when an USFWS can "Take" a Red Wolf!!

Wonder if "Heartworms" where clearly visible to the "Shooter" of the September 30, 2014 Red Wolf??

One thing not visible is a news release from USFWS alerting the public of the $52,050.00 reward!!

Collars &quot;B-Gone&quot;??

Hey, this brings up another great point as it relates to the collars... You see 40, yes 40 NCDOT collars are "poof-gone"...

Yep, six figures of NC's $ gone! Remember the big HWY 64 widening study, well NCDOT got strapped with a six figure expense to study how "Why Did the Chicken... No wait... Wolf Cross The Road"!! Now 40 collars are missing!

So before I'd give one back I'd make them provide a receipt and place the burden on them. Also NCWRC just bought them 10 more collars a few months ago. So with 50 NC funded collars it's a good chance the USFWS might be trying to get property that's not theirs?

Hell if they will illegally dump-um out (Red Wolves) on property that's NOT theirs why wouldn't they "TAKE" property that's not theirs? Just sayin...

If they still had those 40 GPS Collars the hunters & anglers would not of had to fund that expense. Same could be said if USFWS had done what they said they were going to do and collar each we would not have this issue!!

Hell if they will illegally dump-um out (Red Wolves) on property that's NOT theirs why wouldn't they "TAKE" property that's not theirs? Just sayin...
Don't know who, but someone has stolen at least 12 sd cards from trail cams in the same tracks of land the woof plane circles. Just saying..... If you have woofs in your area or that woof plane circles your place you need your trail cam in a lock box or hidden cams watching to see who is steeling them. A real thief would take your trail cam. These 12 sd cards were just from my neighborhood, no telling how many have been stolen in the five county woof zone. Watch that plane and be prepared. Pup clubbing time is coming in a couple months, be prepared.

In Other Words Lets NOT Worry About The Law and Instead Focus on Restoring a Predator

Contact
E-mail: lr9[at]princeton.edu
Web: www.lindarutledge.ca; www.easternwolfsurvey.ca
Twitter: @EastWolfSurvey


Red wolves are likely the same species as eastern wolves.

The researchers did not test for red wolves for this paper, but relied on a body of work conducted previously.

These animals, once found in the southeastern United States, became critically endangered in the 1900s, and the last wild animals were gathered and placed in captive breeding facilities.

The captive breeding of a small population may have caused their genetics to diverge from eastern wolves. They have been since been reintroduced in sites of the Southeast &#8211; where they breed readily with coyotes, perhaps further confusing the genetic situation.

&#8220;The attention and controversy around wolves is all cultural, not biological,&#8221; says coauthor Paul Hohenlohe, assistant professor of biology at the University of Idaho. &#8220;But the reality is the biological situation is also complicated. It&#8217;s not static.&#8221;

The role of canids in ecosystems is as important as their evolutionary history.

Arguments about wolf management and conservation can quickly descend into trying to reconstruct the past. What wolf really belongs in the East? Were gray wolves there? Are Canadian gray wolves the same as Rocky Mountain wolves?

Historical records don&#8217;t help. European explorers were not taxonomists, let alone geneticists. They called things by confusing and inconsistent names: brush wolf and gray wolf and black wolf could all mean the same thing, or be perceived as different species.

And so obsessing over what canine belongs where can seem a futile quest.

Lead author Rutledge proposes another way for conservationists to approach this: focus on the ecosystem not the species.

&#8220;Conservation focuses on a very species-specific model,&#8221; she says. &#8220;Agencies often want to know first whether a species is taxonomically valid, but that may not be an efficient way to approach conservation in general. Our research shows that what species are can be very difficult to pin down.&#8221;

&#8220;But we know that ecosystems need top predators,&#8221; she continues. &#8220;That is so clear in the case of over-abundant white-tailed deer in eastern forests. The eastern wolf could play that role, if it could disperse.&#8221;

In other words: Let&#8217;s quit trying to make wolves fit into our neat little taxonomic boxes. Let&#8217;s focus instead on how to protect and restore their critical role as top predators.

http://blog.nature.org/science/2015...rstanding-wolf-hybrids-just-got-a-bit-easier/

REFERENCES

The paper: Rutledge LY, Devillard S, Boone JQ, Hohenlohe PA, White BN. 2015 RAD sequencing and genomic simulations resolve hybrid origins within North American Canis. Biol. Lett.11: 20150303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0303

Bank Robber's… Lobbyist… and Invented Red Wolves

While we can all respect ones opinion, however one should take great note of several statements in the above post made by Ms. Rutledge. It is very, very clear at this point that NO one will stand up and claim that todays Red Wolf is a historically represented Red Wolf. The 1990's delisting was denied by what I feel is 100% fraudulent science to save face over the massive amounts of federal dollars that have been dumped into the Point Defiance Wolf Mill and supplied a steady revenue stream to the well documented Wolf Pimps across America.

Lets examine Ms. Rutledge's comments and train of thought…

1) The 1973 ESA was adopted by the US Congress to save and restore both plants and animals that were either threatened or endangered.

2) No federal funding afforded to "Invent" an animal within the ESA.

3) Ms. Rutledge goes on to admit that the Red Wolf is NOT a true Red Wolf in her own way, meaning in MUST be Delisted ASAP given the clear intent of the US Congress.

4) With Coyotes being the largest threat to the Red Wolf, it is crystal clear that the ecosystem has its top predator in place and does not need an Invented Red Wolf.

5) Why would someone so well educated ever advocate for breaking a Federal Law? Are her comments any different than someone advocating for a bank robber by justifying the illegal heist as providing income to many once he spends the stolen funds?

You see that is exactly how I interpret her comments above. I would assume before someone can do genetic work on anything critically endangered they should have a clear understanding of the law, and anything short of that in my eyes in all reality is just a lobbyist working on behalf of a bank robber by trying to promote an illegal act, violating the Endangered Species Act.

To all in the Academia Community, who will stand tall and call this just what it is -- The Single Largest Wildlife Fraud in United States History...

The most recent comment I could find on this video is over 3 years old. The video was uploaded at least 6 years ago, and looks like it was filmed in the 90's.

I like what he says @ 1:10 lol.

[video=youtube;P1YuKqO-pmQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1YuKqO-pmQ[/video]

Erosion, Private Property Rights and YOU...

Graveyard shift here at the BatCave with a clear message for how USFWS feels about you protecting your private property!

While simultaneously they are illegally stocking "Your" private property 150 miles north with more endangered species!

Wake up folks! Do you see Private Property Rights "Erosion" scheme here?? If USFWS cannot find an endangered species to "Blame" it on they will just "Invent" one and deliver it to "Your" land Illegally!!

So whether it's "Plovers" or an "Invented" Wolf... It's not at all about the Species it's all about the "Reason"... To "Erode" your Private Property "Rights"...

I love the :45 part!! "We know how to control coyote breeding" then the best when Bud goes on to state they have "Built" a population of wild red wolves!

He omits one of the 3 goals was "Self-sustaining"...

That funny!!

BTW- Got a packed house down in the BatCave tonight! Got some great stuff coming, like really, really good stuff coming!

I was told by one of the woof biologist that the woof could not live without human interaction ie. regular vet visits for vaccines and heartworm meds, so how can they ever be self-sustained? And they may know how to control coyote inter breeding but how is that working out now that USFWS is no longer welcome on private land where the woof and coyote are living. From what I have seen the last three years here, I would say that is just another one of their many lies to keep funding. What a tangled web we weive.

Yep, notice no one has refuted the 1972 Range Map...

The Red Wolf Coalition used to pimp the "Wolf" bounties and "Cherokee" Indian card. That is until we exposed the Cherokee Indians mainly reside north of Texas which is part of the Red Wolfs historic range.

As to the wolf bounties, they too were likely just pimped for payment (donations) as the do not say what species of wolf and are erratic in their documentation etc.

120 Red Wolves &quot;Illegally&quot; Released!!!!

What we know -

USFWS released 132 Invented Red Wolves, with 64 being Illegally released onto Private Land with NO Federal Authority!

NO Exactly!!!!!

120 Invented Red Wolves were released Illegally with NO Federal Authority!!

Yes - 120 of the 132 should NOT have been released!!

Why? The 1973 ESA Act mandates that the USFWS conduct a Section 7 Consultation to ensure and proposed action (removing 120 red wolves from captivity) will not further jeopardize the (invented) species.

Well, now USFWS has admitted it only had Federal Authority to release 6 pairs of wolves (12)!!

That my friends is 120 "Illegally" released wolves!!

Dr. David Rabon &amp; Section 7!!

In addition to illegally removing 120 Invented Red Wolves from captivity... The USFWS deliberately "FLOODED" their "Ideal" Habitat at PLNWR causing the wolves to retreat to higher "Private Lands" where the USFWS told you in their initial stakeholder meetings they would NOT BE!

The USFWS then proceeded to out right LIE to you as they knowingly released the wolves with faulty 3M Darting Collars, then chosing to deliberately not inform the public by saying... we kept quite in hopes they would forget about the collars (Beeland book)!!

Today we have confirmed Gunshot Wolves with over 90% of them occurring on Private Lands, yes where USFWS lied to you in those stakeholder meeting, stating we will trap them and return them to federal land!!

This only after being forced off their federal land resulting from their willful intent to "Flood" them out!!

So let me simplify as we have two violations I feel here:

1) No Section 7 was ever completed to grant the release of ANY wolves beyond the original 6 pair (12 total).

2) The PLNWR Section 7 that was completed to allow the dikes and flooding clearly glazed over the fact that endangered species would flooded out and forced onto lands where over 90% of gunshot deaths occur! There was NO MENTION of this!!

Dr. David Rabon is more concerned about eroding your rights than remaining on the 5 County "Landscape" then he is about conserving a species he was paid handsomely to restore!

Guess that's what can happen when a USFWS Employee sits on the Board of a NGO (Red Wolf Coalition), communicates with the plaintiffs counsal not to mention allegedly manipulated mortality data (Intraspecfic Agression).