Jim Beers
This is probably one of the most worthwhile articles I have ever written. Not only has it taken me a long time to make it understandable, it is the culmination of many months of trying to find support, without success, for what it recommends. Federal and state bureaucrats despise what it contains. Conservation and sportsman organizations turn away from it. Animal rights and environmental organizations curl up and rattle, when it is suggested. Politicians scurry away from it, like bugs in a tenement kitchen when you turn on the lights. The only one who can make any of this happen is you.
Please, read this over, and let me know if something is unclear to you, and then, if you agree, give a copy to every friend, acquaintance, and group you know. Speak of it to others, and try to generate support for what will work. We must rely on each other to spread the word.
It is the wrong time to do this (federal elections nine months away), but there is never a good time, truth be told. Maybe, if the recommendations are clear enough, and terse enough, federal politicians seeking votes can be finagled into committing to do all, or some, of the four things in the following article when elected.
Thank you for your time, and any and all help.
Part I
The threat to hunting, fishing, and trapping
Put as succinctly as possible, the threat to hunting, fishing, and trapping is hostility to these pursuits from a small, but active, part of the population organized into well-financed organizations. These organizations are scattered throughout not only the United States, but also all the other "Western" or "First World" nations, as well. They represent mainly affluent, urban factions who are personally unaffected in any way by the anti-everything-rural (hunting, fishing, trapping, ranching, logging, etc.), and anti-gun agendas that they unflinchingly impose on others.
These organizations have been both ruthless and successful in influencing and staffing, not only the U.S. federal bureaucracy and lobbying U.S. politicians for power and funding, they have also controlled the explosive growth of United Nations' control of plants and animals, and the U.N. bureaucracy that fuels that growth. These organizations, and their surrogates, have spawned a perpetual monsoon of ballot initiatives, laws, treaties, conventions, regulations, land restrictions, property takings, permits, and closures, based on every sort of bizarre claim, from "invasive" and "native" species definitions, to imaginary "ecosystem benefits," and the "need" for X, Y, and Z to remain protected forever.
Ultimately, all of these things constrict, and slowly eliminate, hunting, fishing, and trapping, by eliminating tools (guns, traps, and lead, for instance); species (rainbow and brown trout, pheasants, Great Lakes salmon, etc.); managed populations (elk, moose, bighorn sheep, sage grouse, etc.); area use and access, both public and private, where fishing, hunting, and trapping take place; and indoctrinating the public and the young, in particular, with a steady stream of lies and half-truths, that go unrefuted.
State authority over plants and animals, within each state, has steadily been ceded to federal bureaucrats and their sponsors for over 35 years, as state agencies have come to rely more heavily on federal funding, the promise of increased future federal funding, and the strings that the anti-animal-use lobbyists dictate. While nothing in what follows can address the major flaws in "Federal Acts" such as Endangered Species, Wilderness, or Animal Welfare, or the state-level problem of, say, an Illinois with a politically overpowering Chicago, or a Massachusetts with a similar Boston, the following four steps aim to begin helping hunters, fishermen, and trappers (and really, ranchers, loggers, dog owners, and rural folks, in general) by following the wisdom of Our Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.
The following FOUR STEPS are intended to:
Re-establish the authority of state fish and wildlife agencies, under state governments, over the natural resource use and management activities in their state.
Cut the influence of federal bureaucracies over state fish and wildlife agencies.
Eliminate the lure of future federal funding sources for state fish and wildlife agencies.
Re-make state fish and wildlife agencies into advocates for communities, interests, and residents of their state, as opposed to representatives of national and international agendas of groups hostile to local communities.
Begin re-defining the authority, jurisdiction, and role of federal bureaucracies vis-á-vis state authorities in matters such as the management of plants, animals, and land, and the control of the activities of individual citizens, except in matters of defense and interstate commerce.
Ensure that the management of plants and animals, within each state, is done in accord with the desires and welfare of the residents of that state, as was intended by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution, that has served us so well, for 200 years.
Part II
The four steps
STEP 1: Minimize the Trust Fund of unspent fish and wildlife excise taxes and import duties.
Background: Because state fish and wildlife agencies cannot spend all the federally-collected excise taxes and import duties, as they become available to them, that is, the Wildlife Restoration and Sport Fish Restoration funds (hereinafter referred to as P-R and D-J), there is a constant two-to-four-year backlog of unspent funds of plus-or-minus $2 billion dollars (approximately half of a billion dollars in P-R funds, and $1.5 billion in D-J funds). The reason for this backlog is twofold, project approval delays by federal bureaucrats, and the need for the state to provide 25 percent of the cost of each approved project, from state hunting and fishing license money.
Although the law requires that the funds in the Trust Fund be invested, the investment practices of federal overseers have been all but non-existent. Since none of the investment returns accrue to federal overseers, their interest in such interest is nil. State agencies remain silent, because of the promise of billions of federal dollars in the future from Congress, for non-game species "to be managed like P-R and D-J." Similarly, federal "steering" of state project "approval" supports all manner of federal/international/animal rights' agendas.
Recommendation: Amend the P-R and D-J Acts with simple word insertions to grant a two-year moratorium on the 25 percent matching requirement for all Funds that: A) are unspent in the Trust Fund, i.e., the $2 billion, and B) become available to the state fish and wildlife agencies from P-R and D-J during this two-year period. Although some states would benefit more than others, regarding unspent funds in the Trust Fund, all would benefit equally from the suspended match-requirement for funds that become available over the two-year period.
This would free up the license money, otherwise needed by the states to match the $2 billion in the Trust Fund, or make half-a-billion dollars, more available in the fifty states, immediately, for priority uses, and to begin reconfiguring each agency along the lines of state priorities, as opposed to current or future federal bureaucratic priorities.
Using an estimate of $750 million of excise taxes and import duties becoming available each year to the states, or $1.5 billion during the recommended two year period, another $350 to $400 million would become available (state license money that would otherwise be used for a match for the $1.5 billion) to the states for fish and wildlife activities over the two-year period. Honest and thorough audits (to be covered in STEP II) would preclude diversion of state license money to illegal or non-fish and wildlife management purposes.
Additional wording should be added to each Act, stating that future funds may not accumulate unspent in the Trust Fund for more than one-year. If they do, they are added back into the funds available to all states, the following year. This assures available funding is spent efficaciously, and this can be done by each state using the financial benefits from the first half of this recommendation ($850-to-900 million) to establish a planning process and staff duties, to assure the swift and efficient use of future available funding.
STEP 2:
Reduce the amount of funding withheld for federal "administration."
Background: Today, $16 Million from P-R and D-J and 134 federal positions "administer" the excise taxes and import duties (plus-or-minus $750 million, per year) disbursed to the states annually from the sale and importation of hunting and fishing equipment, guns, and ammunition. The federal bureaucrats use the funds and personnel for all manner of federal purposes, such as:
employees not wanted elsewhere in the agency;
deposited funds are poorly invested,
audits are not conducted every 5 years, as required by law,
illegally employed federal non-auditors are given scarce funding to conduct audits that are not accurate, open, honestly reported, or indeed, even defined as audits,
state use of funding is becoming more lax, as accountability wanes,
federal "administrative" funds are used for Washington building rents and furnishings, in inordinate amounts,
and a labor-intensive-agenda-driven grant approval process is maintained.
Recommendation: Amend the P-R and D-J Acts to reduce the amount reserved for "administration of the Act" from $16 Million to $3 Million, per year, and the federal employees authorized to administer the Acts from 134 to 12.
One million, per year, is enough to hire a real contract auditor to audit 10 states per year, or 50 states every five years, as required by law. Two million per year is more than enough for 12 competent employees to disburse the funds, manage a contract auditor, tinker with regulations, and work with competent state fish and wildlife agencies. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that given the lack of influence and time for federal mischief, such a group might figure out how fishing tackle sales and imports keep going up while duties and taxes paid to D-J stay stagnant or decrease, or why the way gun manufacturers figure their taxes might affect the revenues to P-R.
STEP 3:
Eliminate the $3 Million per year going to the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the national lobby groups for state fish and wildlife agencies in Washington, DC.
Background: Three million, per year, from P-R and D-J began going to this Association, right after the late-90s scandal, where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was discovered to have stolen $45-to-$60 million from P-R and D-J, over a two year period. In my opinion, it was hush money, so that the states never asked for the money stolen from hunters and fishermen by federal bureaucrats (to do nefarious things that even Congress had refused to fund) to be repaid. And it worked, the score at that point was: federal bureaucrats and Washington lobbyists "100" - state fish and wildlife agencies and hunters and fishermen "0."
The funds are described as necessary for "interstate" or "national" projects. In fact, they have become an insidious major source of salaries and play money for a greatly-expanded staff for the states' Washington DC lobby group (how could that ever be "bad?"
. The Association has subsequently evolved from a guardian of states' rights and wildlife management, to a quiescent federal "partner," in everything from wolf introductions to new Federal Invasive Species authority. "Interstate" projects should be funded by the states affected, and if that is precluded by state laws, or cannot gain priority in those states, then it is not important enough for those states to pursue, and so be it. "National" projects should be funded by the federal Congress, if such projects cannot make the cut within federal agencies (where they compete with other things for federal monies), or if Congressional Committees don't introduce them, then, like their "interstate" cousins, they should fall by the wayside, with all the other "nice to do" proposals.
Recommendation: Amend P-R and D-J to eliminate the $3 million reserved to the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
The benefit to all 50 states of $16 million, per year ($3 million here, and the $13 million, per year, from STEP 2) with fewer "strings" would do much for hunting, fishing, and trapping. For instance, implementing STEPS 2 and 3 alone, would have boosted annual funds available to, say Alabama, in 2003, from $675,000 to $740,000, for a $65,000 increase.
STEP 4:
Eliminate the $80 Million per year going from D-J to the state of Louisiana for "wetland restoration."
Background: Since 1988, when the law was amended to divert a portion of the federal gasoline taxes (estimated to be used by boats) to D-J funding, $80 million per year has been earmarked over and above all other uses, for Louisiana. The real reason is that the Senate Sponsor of the Bill was Senator John Breaux, of Louisiana. To date, over $1.25 billion has gone to Louisiana, and never been audited. I was recently told that the funds are merely divided between Louisiana counties and used as operating money. On paper, the only use I can find is that it has gone to feasibility studies.
Recommendation: Amend the D-J Act to eliminate the Louisiana earmark of $80 million, and like the elimination of the $3 million per year in Step 4, allow those funds to be folded into the funds awarded each year to all the states.
Summary
The four recommended steps are meant to be interlocking. It might be tempting to say you like step 1, but reject the others, or some such combination. However, consider that they form a whole, that is needed to counter-balance the threats to hunting, fishing, and trapping.
Consider that these recommendations make the following new money available to state fish and wildlife agencies:
STEP 1: $ 900 million over the first 2 years.
STEP 2: $ 13 million every year.
STEP 3: $ 3 million every year.
STEP 4: $ 80 million every year.
Totals: $ 1 billion, 90 million during the first 2 years, and $96 million per year, for as far as the eye can see.
The proposed steps or amendments make all this money available to state fish and wildlife agencies without costing anyone a cent! It is all state money – always intended by the P-R and D-J Acts and the people (hunters, fishermen, gun manufacturers, fishing tackle manufacturers, and trappers) that sponsored and support these very successful "user pays" programs to support state activities.
Additionally, and perhaps, of even greater benefit than the "new" money in the long-run, we could expect to see the following benefits:
Reduced federal control of state programs, by reducing project steering activities.
Restoration of states' rights lobbying in Washington, on behalf of state authorities and use-oriented fish and wildlife management, since they will no longer depend on the federal government for much of their growth and operation.
Diminishment of the federal/state vision of some sort of federal funding for "non-game" from Congress, through the federal bureaucracy, "just like P-R and D-J," since the federal withholding would be limited to what is necessary to assure compliance with regulations.
Diminishment of animal-rights/environmental influence through federal regulators over hunting, fishing, and trapping.
Reduced U.N. influence through federal "strings" over everything, from ginseng to wetlands.
The re-appearance of state fish and wildlife bureaucrats who see themselves as employees of state governments, representatives of state concerns, and actual warriors for state interests – under attack by federal bureaucrats, international organizations, and the U.N.
Honest and action-oriented audits of state programs, since the incentive for federal/state non-game funding for federal bureaucrats (oodles of new "administrative" play money) disappears, and thus, the need to cover up current problems goes away.
A belated, but still welcome, repayment of the money stolen from hunters, fishermen, and trappers, 10 years ago, by federal bureaucrats, and ignored by state bureaucrats.
I am often asked where we can get the money to fight for our rights. These four steps answer that question partially. If these federal law amendments could be passed (and the only reasons why not, are hidden agendas, politics, and personal interests of those in power), the work begins at the state level to provide positive state political oversight of state bureaucracies, and the flow of new money should help get their attention.
It isn't everything, but it is a start.
Make copies of this. Spread copies around. Start asking federal representatives about it now, before the upcoming elections, or after they get back in office, but ask them to introduce this.
Keep an eye on those who tell you it's impossible, or that it's not "worth" it. Ask yourself about your dues to hunting, fishing, or trapping organizations that ignore this, or simply tell you "Beers is an '@#*^*'." Ask yourself about state employees who demean this, or ignore it, no matter what you thought of them in the past. These four steps can tell you a lot, as well as do a lot for all of us, and the things we hold dear.
_____________
Jim Beers retired from the US Fish and Wildlife Service after 30 years. He served as a wildlife biologist, wetlands biologist, special agent, and refuge manager. After working for the Utah Fish & Game and spending four years as a Reserve Officer in the US Navy, he joined the US Fish & Wildlife Service. He was stationed at Devils Lake, North Dakota; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Grand Island, Nebraska; New York City; and Washington, DC.
While in Washington, Jim was a Congressional Fellow, the Chief of Operations for the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Program Coordinator for the Animal Damage Control Program, and for seven years was the wildlife biologist in the Central Office. He served as Project Officer on nearly all national wildlife projects funded with Pittman-Robertson money. Appointees of the Clinton Administration cleansed the US Fish and Wildlife Service of many wildlife management biologists like Jim. New employees went against legal statutes and supported eliminating management of plants and animals for sustainable uses. Jim resisted this, and eventually testified before Congress about Service misuse of millions of dollars intended for state wildlife management programs, only to do things prohibited by Congress. This was being done in collusion with animal rights and environmental organizations -- over $45 million without a paper trail. After spending months at home with no work assignment, Jim accepted a cash settlement and retired in 1999. He holds a Bachelors degree in Wildlife Resources from Utah State University and a Masters in Public Administration from the University of Northern Colorado.
Jim makes his home in Virginia; you may email him at jimbeers7@earthlink.net
This is probably one of the most worthwhile articles I have ever written. Not only has it taken me a long time to make it understandable, it is the culmination of many months of trying to find support, without success, for what it recommends. Federal and state bureaucrats despise what it contains. Conservation and sportsman organizations turn away from it. Animal rights and environmental organizations curl up and rattle, when it is suggested. Politicians scurry away from it, like bugs in a tenement kitchen when you turn on the lights. The only one who can make any of this happen is you.
Please, read this over, and let me know if something is unclear to you, and then, if you agree, give a copy to every friend, acquaintance, and group you know. Speak of it to others, and try to generate support for what will work. We must rely on each other to spread the word.
It is the wrong time to do this (federal elections nine months away), but there is never a good time, truth be told. Maybe, if the recommendations are clear enough, and terse enough, federal politicians seeking votes can be finagled into committing to do all, or some, of the four things in the following article when elected.
Thank you for your time, and any and all help.
Part I
The threat to hunting, fishing, and trapping
Put as succinctly as possible, the threat to hunting, fishing, and trapping is hostility to these pursuits from a small, but active, part of the population organized into well-financed organizations. These organizations are scattered throughout not only the United States, but also all the other "Western" or "First World" nations, as well. They represent mainly affluent, urban factions who are personally unaffected in any way by the anti-everything-rural (hunting, fishing, trapping, ranching, logging, etc.), and anti-gun agendas that they unflinchingly impose on others.
These organizations have been both ruthless and successful in influencing and staffing, not only the U.S. federal bureaucracy and lobbying U.S. politicians for power and funding, they have also controlled the explosive growth of United Nations' control of plants and animals, and the U.N. bureaucracy that fuels that growth. These organizations, and their surrogates, have spawned a perpetual monsoon of ballot initiatives, laws, treaties, conventions, regulations, land restrictions, property takings, permits, and closures, based on every sort of bizarre claim, from "invasive" and "native" species definitions, to imaginary "ecosystem benefits," and the "need" for X, Y, and Z to remain protected forever.
Ultimately, all of these things constrict, and slowly eliminate, hunting, fishing, and trapping, by eliminating tools (guns, traps, and lead, for instance); species (rainbow and brown trout, pheasants, Great Lakes salmon, etc.); managed populations (elk, moose, bighorn sheep, sage grouse, etc.); area use and access, both public and private, where fishing, hunting, and trapping take place; and indoctrinating the public and the young, in particular, with a steady stream of lies and half-truths, that go unrefuted.
State authority over plants and animals, within each state, has steadily been ceded to federal bureaucrats and their sponsors for over 35 years, as state agencies have come to rely more heavily on federal funding, the promise of increased future federal funding, and the strings that the anti-animal-use lobbyists dictate. While nothing in what follows can address the major flaws in "Federal Acts" such as Endangered Species, Wilderness, or Animal Welfare, or the state-level problem of, say, an Illinois with a politically overpowering Chicago, or a Massachusetts with a similar Boston, the following four steps aim to begin helping hunters, fishermen, and trappers (and really, ranchers, loggers, dog owners, and rural folks, in general) by following the wisdom of Our Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.
The following FOUR STEPS are intended to:
Re-establish the authority of state fish and wildlife agencies, under state governments, over the natural resource use and management activities in their state.
Cut the influence of federal bureaucracies over state fish and wildlife agencies.
Eliminate the lure of future federal funding sources for state fish and wildlife agencies.
Re-make state fish and wildlife agencies into advocates for communities, interests, and residents of their state, as opposed to representatives of national and international agendas of groups hostile to local communities.
Begin re-defining the authority, jurisdiction, and role of federal bureaucracies vis-á-vis state authorities in matters such as the management of plants, animals, and land, and the control of the activities of individual citizens, except in matters of defense and interstate commerce.
Ensure that the management of plants and animals, within each state, is done in accord with the desires and welfare of the residents of that state, as was intended by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution, that has served us so well, for 200 years.
Part II
The four steps
STEP 1: Minimize the Trust Fund of unspent fish and wildlife excise taxes and import duties.
Background: Because state fish and wildlife agencies cannot spend all the federally-collected excise taxes and import duties, as they become available to them, that is, the Wildlife Restoration and Sport Fish Restoration funds (hereinafter referred to as P-R and D-J), there is a constant two-to-four-year backlog of unspent funds of plus-or-minus $2 billion dollars (approximately half of a billion dollars in P-R funds, and $1.5 billion in D-J funds). The reason for this backlog is twofold, project approval delays by federal bureaucrats, and the need for the state to provide 25 percent of the cost of each approved project, from state hunting and fishing license money.
Although the law requires that the funds in the Trust Fund be invested, the investment practices of federal overseers have been all but non-existent. Since none of the investment returns accrue to federal overseers, their interest in such interest is nil. State agencies remain silent, because of the promise of billions of federal dollars in the future from Congress, for non-game species "to be managed like P-R and D-J." Similarly, federal "steering" of state project "approval" supports all manner of federal/international/animal rights' agendas.
Recommendation: Amend the P-R and D-J Acts with simple word insertions to grant a two-year moratorium on the 25 percent matching requirement for all Funds that: A) are unspent in the Trust Fund, i.e., the $2 billion, and B) become available to the state fish and wildlife agencies from P-R and D-J during this two-year period. Although some states would benefit more than others, regarding unspent funds in the Trust Fund, all would benefit equally from the suspended match-requirement for funds that become available over the two-year period.
This would free up the license money, otherwise needed by the states to match the $2 billion in the Trust Fund, or make half-a-billion dollars, more available in the fifty states, immediately, for priority uses, and to begin reconfiguring each agency along the lines of state priorities, as opposed to current or future federal bureaucratic priorities.
Using an estimate of $750 million of excise taxes and import duties becoming available each year to the states, or $1.5 billion during the recommended two year period, another $350 to $400 million would become available (state license money that would otherwise be used for a match for the $1.5 billion) to the states for fish and wildlife activities over the two-year period. Honest and thorough audits (to be covered in STEP II) would preclude diversion of state license money to illegal or non-fish and wildlife management purposes.
Additional wording should be added to each Act, stating that future funds may not accumulate unspent in the Trust Fund for more than one-year. If they do, they are added back into the funds available to all states, the following year. This assures available funding is spent efficaciously, and this can be done by each state using the financial benefits from the first half of this recommendation ($850-to-900 million) to establish a planning process and staff duties, to assure the swift and efficient use of future available funding.
STEP 2:
Reduce the amount of funding withheld for federal "administration."
Background: Today, $16 Million from P-R and D-J and 134 federal positions "administer" the excise taxes and import duties (plus-or-minus $750 million, per year) disbursed to the states annually from the sale and importation of hunting and fishing equipment, guns, and ammunition. The federal bureaucrats use the funds and personnel for all manner of federal purposes, such as:
employees not wanted elsewhere in the agency;
deposited funds are poorly invested,
audits are not conducted every 5 years, as required by law,
illegally employed federal non-auditors are given scarce funding to conduct audits that are not accurate, open, honestly reported, or indeed, even defined as audits,
state use of funding is becoming more lax, as accountability wanes,
federal "administrative" funds are used for Washington building rents and furnishings, in inordinate amounts,
and a labor-intensive-agenda-driven grant approval process is maintained.
Recommendation: Amend the P-R and D-J Acts to reduce the amount reserved for "administration of the Act" from $16 Million to $3 Million, per year, and the federal employees authorized to administer the Acts from 134 to 12.
One million, per year, is enough to hire a real contract auditor to audit 10 states per year, or 50 states every five years, as required by law. Two million per year is more than enough for 12 competent employees to disburse the funds, manage a contract auditor, tinker with regulations, and work with competent state fish and wildlife agencies. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that given the lack of influence and time for federal mischief, such a group might figure out how fishing tackle sales and imports keep going up while duties and taxes paid to D-J stay stagnant or decrease, or why the way gun manufacturers figure their taxes might affect the revenues to P-R.
STEP 3:
Eliminate the $3 Million per year going to the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the national lobby groups for state fish and wildlife agencies in Washington, DC.
Background: Three million, per year, from P-R and D-J began going to this Association, right after the late-90s scandal, where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was discovered to have stolen $45-to-$60 million from P-R and D-J, over a two year period. In my opinion, it was hush money, so that the states never asked for the money stolen from hunters and fishermen by federal bureaucrats (to do nefarious things that even Congress had refused to fund) to be repaid. And it worked, the score at that point was: federal bureaucrats and Washington lobbyists "100" - state fish and wildlife agencies and hunters and fishermen "0."
The funds are described as necessary for "interstate" or "national" projects. In fact, they have become an insidious major source of salaries and play money for a greatly-expanded staff for the states' Washington DC lobby group (how could that ever be "bad?"
. The Association has subsequently evolved from a guardian of states' rights and wildlife management, to a quiescent federal "partner," in everything from wolf introductions to new Federal Invasive Species authority. "Interstate" projects should be funded by the states affected, and if that is precluded by state laws, or cannot gain priority in those states, then it is not important enough for those states to pursue, and so be it. "National" projects should be funded by the federal Congress, if such projects cannot make the cut within federal agencies (where they compete with other things for federal monies), or if Congressional Committees don't introduce them, then, like their "interstate" cousins, they should fall by the wayside, with all the other "nice to do" proposals. Recommendation: Amend P-R and D-J to eliminate the $3 million reserved to the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
The benefit to all 50 states of $16 million, per year ($3 million here, and the $13 million, per year, from STEP 2) with fewer "strings" would do much for hunting, fishing, and trapping. For instance, implementing STEPS 2 and 3 alone, would have boosted annual funds available to, say Alabama, in 2003, from $675,000 to $740,000, for a $65,000 increase.
STEP 4:
Eliminate the $80 Million per year going from D-J to the state of Louisiana for "wetland restoration."
Background: Since 1988, when the law was amended to divert a portion of the federal gasoline taxes (estimated to be used by boats) to D-J funding, $80 million per year has been earmarked over and above all other uses, for Louisiana. The real reason is that the Senate Sponsor of the Bill was Senator John Breaux, of Louisiana. To date, over $1.25 billion has gone to Louisiana, and never been audited. I was recently told that the funds are merely divided between Louisiana counties and used as operating money. On paper, the only use I can find is that it has gone to feasibility studies.
Recommendation: Amend the D-J Act to eliminate the Louisiana earmark of $80 million, and like the elimination of the $3 million per year in Step 4, allow those funds to be folded into the funds awarded each year to all the states.
Summary
The four recommended steps are meant to be interlocking. It might be tempting to say you like step 1, but reject the others, or some such combination. However, consider that they form a whole, that is needed to counter-balance the threats to hunting, fishing, and trapping.
Consider that these recommendations make the following new money available to state fish and wildlife agencies:
STEP 1: $ 900 million over the first 2 years.
STEP 2: $ 13 million every year.
STEP 3: $ 3 million every year.
STEP 4: $ 80 million every year.
Totals: $ 1 billion, 90 million during the first 2 years, and $96 million per year, for as far as the eye can see.
The proposed steps or amendments make all this money available to state fish and wildlife agencies without costing anyone a cent! It is all state money – always intended by the P-R and D-J Acts and the people (hunters, fishermen, gun manufacturers, fishing tackle manufacturers, and trappers) that sponsored and support these very successful "user pays" programs to support state activities.
Additionally, and perhaps, of even greater benefit than the "new" money in the long-run, we could expect to see the following benefits:
Reduced federal control of state programs, by reducing project steering activities.
Restoration of states' rights lobbying in Washington, on behalf of state authorities and use-oriented fish and wildlife management, since they will no longer depend on the federal government for much of their growth and operation.
Diminishment of the federal/state vision of some sort of federal funding for "non-game" from Congress, through the federal bureaucracy, "just like P-R and D-J," since the federal withholding would be limited to what is necessary to assure compliance with regulations.
Diminishment of animal-rights/environmental influence through federal regulators over hunting, fishing, and trapping.
Reduced U.N. influence through federal "strings" over everything, from ginseng to wetlands.
The re-appearance of state fish and wildlife bureaucrats who see themselves as employees of state governments, representatives of state concerns, and actual warriors for state interests – under attack by federal bureaucrats, international organizations, and the U.N.
Honest and action-oriented audits of state programs, since the incentive for federal/state non-game funding for federal bureaucrats (oodles of new "administrative" play money) disappears, and thus, the need to cover up current problems goes away.
A belated, but still welcome, repayment of the money stolen from hunters, fishermen, and trappers, 10 years ago, by federal bureaucrats, and ignored by state bureaucrats.
I am often asked where we can get the money to fight for our rights. These four steps answer that question partially. If these federal law amendments could be passed (and the only reasons why not, are hidden agendas, politics, and personal interests of those in power), the work begins at the state level to provide positive state political oversight of state bureaucracies, and the flow of new money should help get their attention.
It isn't everything, but it is a start.
Make copies of this. Spread copies around. Start asking federal representatives about it now, before the upcoming elections, or after they get back in office, but ask them to introduce this.
Keep an eye on those who tell you it's impossible, or that it's not "worth" it. Ask yourself about your dues to hunting, fishing, or trapping organizations that ignore this, or simply tell you "Beers is an '@#*^*'." Ask yourself about state employees who demean this, or ignore it, no matter what you thought of them in the past. These four steps can tell you a lot, as well as do a lot for all of us, and the things we hold dear.
_____________
Jim Beers retired from the US Fish and Wildlife Service after 30 years. He served as a wildlife biologist, wetlands biologist, special agent, and refuge manager. After working for the Utah Fish & Game and spending four years as a Reserve Officer in the US Navy, he joined the US Fish & Wildlife Service. He was stationed at Devils Lake, North Dakota; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Grand Island, Nebraska; New York City; and Washington, DC.
While in Washington, Jim was a Congressional Fellow, the Chief of Operations for the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Program Coordinator for the Animal Damage Control Program, and for seven years was the wildlife biologist in the Central Office. He served as Project Officer on nearly all national wildlife projects funded with Pittman-Robertson money. Appointees of the Clinton Administration cleansed the US Fish and Wildlife Service of many wildlife management biologists like Jim. New employees went against legal statutes and supported eliminating management of plants and animals for sustainable uses. Jim resisted this, and eventually testified before Congress about Service misuse of millions of dollars intended for state wildlife management programs, only to do things prohibited by Congress. This was being done in collusion with animal rights and environmental organizations -- over $45 million without a paper trail. After spending months at home with no work assignment, Jim accepted a cash settlement and retired in 1999. He holds a Bachelors degree in Wildlife Resources from Utah State University and a Masters in Public Administration from the University of Northern Colorado.
Jim makes his home in Virginia; you may email him at jimbeers7@earthlink.net