11 replies to this topic

[buckeye dan]

How  would you like to make a donation to the anti-hunting movement? You  wouldn’t, of course, but like it or not, you already have. In 2007, for  example, $280,000 of your tax dollars went directly to the Humane  Society of the United States (HSUS)—the nation’s preeminent anti-hunting  group—after HSUS successfully stopped the delisting of wolves from the  Endangered Species Act in Minnesota.

Yes,  your tax money is going straight to anti-hunting groups that file  lawsuits to end legal hunting opportunities. If that’s not enough,  taxpayers gave more than $436,000 to anti-hunting groups for blocking  wolf management in the northern Rockies. All told, 13 environmental and  anti-hunting groups, like Defenders of Wildlife, sued the federal  government 1,159 times in the last 10 years and were reimbursed an  estimated $34 million in legal fees from the federal government. Many of  those suits had a direct impact on your freedom to hunt.

“It’s the best-kept secret in the environmental community,” says Boone and Crockett Club president Lowell Baier.

Here’s  how it works: Two sources of federal money provide reimbursement for  legal fees for any individual or organization that files a lawsuit  against the federal government and wins. One, called the Judgment Fund,  is a congressional line-item appropriation used solely for cases related  to the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, among others.

Karen Budd-Falen,  a property-rights attorney from Wyoming who has tracked the rising tide  of enviro-litigation, discovered that over $1 billion in payments from  the Judgment Fund went out in just the first half of 2007 alone. Not all  of it went to environmental groups, but plenty did.

“It’s hard to tell because the federal government is not required to track individual payments,” she says.

The  second method is through the Equal Access to Justice Act, which was  aimed at helping individuals and small businesses take on the federal  government. The EAJA prohibits reimbursement to for-profit corporations  worth more than $7 million; however, non-profit groups are exempt. It’s  not as though the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which filed at  least 409 lawsuits and 165 appeals in federal courts in the last 10  years, needs the money. They claimed a net income of $9 million and net  assets of more than $6 million in 2008. Defenders of Wildlife raked in  $30.7 million from members’ donations, from reimbursed legal fees and  from other sources in 2008. HSUS then had about $162 million in net  assets; nevertheless, HSUS received nearly $1.5 million from the federal  government for 15 legal cases.

Look  at the staffs of these various groups and it’s clear that they’ve  mastered the system. The CBD has at least 20 attorneys on staff—about a  third of their entire employee roster. Defenders also has a lawyer-heavy  staff. Moreover, the EAJA limits attorney fees to $250 per hour, but  Budd-Falen says some cases are reimbursed at up to $650 per hour per  lawyer.


The  catch is that many of these suits are based on technicalities, such as  the federal government’s failure to meet a strict filing deadline or to  follow a specific—and often unnecessary—procedure. Not surprisingly, the  suits have little or nothing to do with actually preserving wildlife or  habitat.“Environmental litigation is a big, profitable business, pure  and simple,” says Budd-Falen. She says these groups block access to  public land and prevent sound timber management on public land in the  name of protecting endangered species.

Speaking  to a reporter for High Country News in 2009, CBD founder Kieran  Suckling said, “At its simplest, by obtaining an injunction to shut down  logging or prevent the filling of a dam, the power shifts to our hands.  The Forest Service needs our agreement to get back to work, and we are  in the position of being able to powerfully negotiate the terms of  releasing the injunction.

“New  injunctions, new species listings and new bad press take a terrible  toll on agency morale. When we stop the same timber sale three or four  times running, the timber planners want to tear their hair out. They  feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed—and they are. So  they become much more willing to play by our rules and at least get  something done. Psychological warfare is a very under-appreciated aspect  of environmental campaigning.”

Many  of the suits center on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS)  failure to respond to an endangered species petition in a “timely  manner.” That’s one reason groups like the CBD flood the USFWS with  endangered-species-listing petitions. Last April, the CBD filed a bulk  petition requesting the USFWS to review 404 species from the  southeastern United States. WildEarth Guardians submitted two  petitions—one seeking protection for 475 plants and animals and another  naming 681 species. The USFWS has 90 days to consider each animal listed  in the petition and a year to make a final determination to list the  species it deems to be endangered or threatened. It’s all but impossible  to make those deadlines when the system is overwhelmed, says  Budd-Falen, but that’s exactly why these groups file bulk petitions.

Contrary  to popular belief, the federal government doesn’t have unlimited  resources to defend against the constant onslaught of enviro-litigation.  Nor do they have an army of biologists who can jump at every species  request, so the USFWS, Forest Service and other government agencies  either give in to demands or go to court, knowing they will lose on a  technicality. In many cases, money taken from a specific agency, such as  the Forest Service, to pay for these lawsuits could have been spent on  other programs that benefit game and non-game species along with hunter  access to public land.

      The  gravy train may at least chug into the public eye. Representative  Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) sponsored the Open EAJA Act of 2010, which would  shed light on exactly who is receiving legal fees under the original  EAJA—currently the government doesn’t have to keep publicly available  records of these payouts. So far, it has 25 cosponsors. A companion bill  is making its way through the U.S. Senate. It’s a good first step, says  Baier, and it’s just the beginning of the end of your tax money going  to the groups that want to end your freedom to hunt. We hope. 

Source: http://www.americanh...campaign=15Bows

[Moon]

Not surprising. Sad!!!!

[Gimmy]

I read the article in my American Hunter magazine from the NRA.  I am not really surprised that we, as tax payers, are helping fund these Anti-Hunting Groups, But I'm in awe at the money that we unsuspectingly give to fund these groups.    These donations and taxes should be made very very public so that everyone is aware of where their money is going these days.

Edited by Gimmy, 25 January 2011 - 07:58 PM.

[30pointbuck]

Gimmy, on 25 January 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

I read the article in my American Hunter magazine from the NRA.  I am not really surprised that we, as tax payers, are helping fund these Anti-Hunting Groups, But I'm in awe at the money that we unsuspectingly give to fund these groups.    These donations and taxes should be made very very public so that everyone is aware of where their money is going these days.

I totally agree Gimmy. Well said.

[Zrt1200]

   buckeye dan, Thank you for keeping us informed on things like this!! It is sad!!!

[huntingal]

I had no idea Dan, thank you for the post. Just what can we do to help Cynthis Lummis and others in this protest, as I sit here seething.

[hunthard]

Sounds like these groups are making millions off tax payers in a underhanded fraudulent loophole they have learned to exploit. If we could get rid of all the ways the government leaks money we could probably afford healthcare for every american.Sounds like a jobs program for lawyers funded by the tax payers.

Edited by hunthard, 26 January 2011 - 10:11 AM.

[buckeye dan]

Well it was unfortunate that I took so long to post this. Both the Senate and House versions of this Bill died in last years session. I think they made it to a committee and went poof. It doesn't have to end there however.

What you can do is contact your representatives. Ask for them to resurrect this legislation for this session. Be courteous and understanding that the representatives are busy with larger fish to fry like the budget, jobs and health care. BUT! Make it clear that as hunters and fisherman this legislation is important to you and that you would like them to revisit it at their earliest possible convenience.

House Reference is: HR 4717
Senate Reference is: S 3122

I am expecting a letter from Congressman Lummis any day now and I'll know more about it.

[mike1975]

There's a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to donations and what really happens to the money government takes from taxes .....you can ask them what the money goes to and you will get all the information but the truth....Or am i being paranoid. Thanks Dan that's good info to know.

[Old Longhair]

When we pay taxes, and aren't told where the money is going, isn't that taxation without representation?

[TenPoint Matt]

My link


Get in contact with your states representative and show support of the Open EAJA Act of 2010. If your states reps get enough reponse they may revisit the bill.  Help revive the bill, because right now it is dying.

[buckmaster221]

Does this really surprise anybody? How many of us REALLY know where our money is being spent or sent? Sure, we hear about the millions and billions of dollars being spent on war, healthcare, unemployment and other high profile topics. However, do you really think that the government is really going to divulge willingly where the rest of our taxes are being spent? Their general feeling is the less we know about what they are doing, the better.