We Are All Funding Anti-Hunting Groups

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.

GOA Alert: Senate Moves on Bill to "Muzzle the Web"

Legislation could potentially shut down gun websites

By now, you are no doubt aware that several websites have either gone totally or partially “dark” today in protest of the pernicious internet legislation that will be coming to a vote next week. Wikipedia and Google are just two of the websites which are protesting in this manner.

And while you may have not paid much attention to this story, you need to know that the “muzzle the web” legislation these sites are protesting could also affect your ability to get gun-related information on websites like GOA’s

The reason is that S. 968 could, in its final form, allow the Brady Campaign to partially shut down our GOA website and our organization (plus many other pro-gun websites) with a series of factually accurate, but legally frivolous complaints.

The Senate bill and its House counterpart have accurately been called “a direct attack on the underpinnings of the web.”

True, many of the most serious “gun problems” are in the House counterpart. But the reality is this: We are within a few votes of killing the whole concept next week in the Senate with only 41 Senate votes.

But if we allow the so-called “anti-piracy” bill to go forward on the HOPE that the worst provisions will not make it into the final version -– and we fail to eliminate them -– the bill may be unstoppable.

Here are the “gun problems,” as we see them:

Section 103(b)(1) of H.R. 3261 allows any “holder of an intellectual property right” to demand that PayPal and other payment and advertising services stop providing services to organizations like ours, thereby shutting off our income.

How would they do this? Perhaps by arguing that we were stealing their intellectual property by quoting their lying misrepresentations in our alerts.

Is this legally frivolous? Sure it is. But the Brady Campaign is the King of Frivolous Complaints:

* Remember when the Brady Campaign asked the Federal Election Commission in 2007 to shut down GOA’s ability to post its candidate ratings on the Internet? They claimed that we were in violation of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. Thankfully, the FEC ruled in GOA’s favor, thus enabling us to continue posting candidate ratings without restraint.

* Remember when the Brady Campaign got 36 state and local jurisdictions to bring frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers –- not in the expectation of winning, but to drain the resources of the manufacturers in order to halt the manufacture of guns in America?

This “muzzle the web” legislation will throw the doors open to even more frivolous complaints. Could we defend ourselves? Yes, we could. We could file a counter notification under section 103(b)(5) and spend years defending ourselves. But the one thing we did learn during the 36 frivolous lawsuits is that the anti-gun forces in America have very deep pockets.

And the other problem is that, under section 104, our Internet providers would be insulated from liability for shutting us down. But they would receive no comparable insulation from legal liability if they refused to cut us off.

The Senate version, S. 968, has been amended, at the behest of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley and others, to provide many protections which were not in its initial form.

Under section 3, the Attorney General would go to court and would have to claim that, because of a hyperlink to an offending site, we were “primarily” engaged in the theft of intellectual property.

We would feel a lot better about these protections if the Attorney General were not Eric Holder, a ruthless ideologue who has demonstrated that he will go to any lengths to destroy the Second Amendment.

So the bottom line is this: H.R. 3261 and S. 968 would potentially empower the Brady Campaign and Eric Holder to go after our Internet site. To do so, they would have to make the same frivolous arguments and engage in the same lawless activity that they have done so often in the past.

But -– given that we’re within a few votes of snuffing out that risk by killing the bill in the Senate -– we believe it’s the better course of action to do so.

ACTION: Contact your Senators. Ask them to vote against S. 968, every chance they get.

Lock & Load

No one knows exactly why, but a lot of people are interested in packing heat.

In fact, FBI data suggest that gun sales in New Mexico and nationally will hit record levels in 2011.

Will Hogsett, sales director at Calibers Shooter Sports Center said strong sales at his store may be due to an improving economy or lingering fears about stronger gun control before the 2012 elections.

“I’m happy either way,” Hogsett said this week as customers crowded Calibers sales room and waited up to an hour for a lane in the shooting range. “It’s been like this for about three weeks now.”

Sales of handguns and shotguns continue to be the big sellers among people looking for protection in their homes, he said. “The big thing people come to us for is home defense.”

The FBI reports that the number of background checks required to buy a firearm hit a national one-month record of more than 1.5 million in November and remained strong this month, CNN has reported.

In New Mexico, the number of FBI National Instant Criminal Background checks totalled 10,011 in November, up 14 percent from about 8,800 in November 2010.

That number falls short of the state’s 12,078 background checks performed in November 2008. State data for December was not available.

Short-term economic and political factors aside, for years, gun ownership has grown in popularity, particularly among women, said Valerie Jackson, co-owner of Charlie’s Sporting Goods.

“There are just more people shooting,” Jackson said.

“When I first started in the industry 40 years ago, there were very few women customers.”

A Gallup poll released in October found that 34 percent of U.S. adults and 23 percent of women surveyed reported personal gun ownership.

The number of background checks performed by the FBI nationally has increased each year for nearly a decade from 8.5 million in 2002 to 14.6 million in the first 11 months this year.

For New Mexico, the number of FBI background checks climbed from 80,000 in 2002 to 102,000 through November this year. In 2010, a record 109,000 background checks were performed for New Mexico.

Alicia Eiler of Albuquerque visited Calibers this week to get in some target practice with a new Christmas gift from her father — a Heckler and Koch 9mm pistol.

“My dad had a little spare cash this year,” Eiler said.

Eiler has owned other firearms before but now plans to try some competitive shooting with her new pistol, she said.

She also owns firearms for personal protection. “I feel safer in my home,” she said.

— This article appeared on page A1 of the Albuquerque Journal

Montana OKs using hunters to kill wolves for livestock depredations

Montana ranchers whose livestock is killed by wolves will be allowed to use hunters, in addition to federal agents, to remove those wolves under a proposal adopted Thursday by the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission.

Ranchers still need to go through the original process. They have authority to shoot a wolf in the process of harassing livestock, but if they don't see it happen, they must call Wildlife Services to confirm the kill and get authorization to kill the offending wolves. If agents with Wildlife Services - a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture - aren't able to complete the removal of wolves, the rancher now can call upon a hunter to do the job.

"The idea has had a fair amount of discussion ... and this is the application of another tool - the hunters - that we can rely on, in coordination with Wildlife Services and the landowner," said Quentin Kujala, the FWP wildlife management section chief. "It doesn't replace Wildlife Services and there may be situations where this tool doesn't come to bear; we may find it never happens or we may find it happens often."

The fact that FWP won't have hunters sign up to be chosen to go after the wolves bothered some of the commission members, who worried it would create a perception of cronyism since the landowner will get to select who can go on the hunt.

But Kujala countered that the idea is to get someone on the ground quick, and Commissioner Shane Colton that said while he shared the concerns, wolves are somewhat unique and they should at least try this route.

"I think the landowners who have trouble want to select people who want to get a wolf, who are able to do it and who live down the road and can be there as soon as possible instead of relying on the department to go through a list," Colton said. "I support that rationale for this animal, but we need to watch it closely to make sure there is no special treatment or quid pro quo."

Reporter Eve Byron can be reached at (406) 447-4076 or at eve.byron@helenair.com.

Southern Rockies Wolf Plans Dangerous? Includes NM

Southern Rockies Wolf Plans Dangerous? Read for yourself Folks, The official S. Rockies wolf documents have now been released to the public. CLICK HERE to visit biggameforever.org/blog where you can download and read the proposal. Here's how these documents were released to the public. On December 2, 2011 Arizona Fish and Game commission released official documents, which would mandate wolf proliferation across the Southern Rockies and into Texas. The documents have been confirmed by several sources, including a regional director for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service testifying at Friday's Arizona Fish and Game Commission hearing. Despite denials by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding these plans, it has become clear that these plans are moving forward. This official "draft" was released for official comment by members of the wolf recovery team in the last couple of weeks. In the wake of criticism by western states, USFWS' national director accused states of "mischaracterizing" the Southern Rockies wolf plans. These leaked documents confirm that the criticism of these plans by western states were well founded. Here are several quotes from the document that illustrate the dangerous nature of these plans: (1) An acknowledgment of the intent to force wolves into Texas  "Several questions at the August recovery team meeting focused on...availability of suitable habitat in Mexico and the United States, especially Texas." "Approximately 24,000 square kilometers of potentially suitable [wolf] habitat...occurs in western Texas." (2) Mandated wolf proliferation across the entire southern Rockies "Based on the material below we recommend that the Mexican wolf recovery area include "Mexico...western Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and the southern portions of Utah and Colorado." (3) Dramatic increases in forced wolf populations minimum numbers "Three major zones of suitable wolf habitat exist in the area encompassing Arizona, New Mexico, southern Colorado and southern Utah. Under current habitat conditions, it is estimated that over 1,000 wolves could inhabit this large area." This is more than triple the number of wolves that were required in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. (4) Mandating Mexican wolves OUTSIDE their historic range using the Endangered Species Act The report spends several pages trying to justify mandated Mexican wolf populations outside their historic range. The report concludes "recovering [Mexican Wolves] outside purported historical ranges...may establish a useful and critically important precedent." Given demonstrable damage from invasive species, most biologists we have spoken with feel this is a slippery slope and a dangerous precedent. The areas outside of historic range includes Utah and Colorado. (5) Plans designed to prevent S. Rockies wolves from ever being managed by Western states The devil is in the details. Legally, no delisting can occur until Mexican wolves are recovered across a "substantial portion of the range." 90% of Mexican wolf range is in Mexico. With no plans to recover wolves in Mexico, there is little hope that wolves in the Southern Rockies would ever be delisted. The legal mechanism of preventing wolf management in the future is by eliminating the safe-guards provided by "non-essential experimental" status and instead create a "subspecies" listing. A "subspecies" listing would prevent delisting even if populations objectives are reached in the Southern Rockies. As a result, these plans provide little in the way of safeguards for livestock and wildlife. (6) The plans would result in "swamping" of Mexican Wolf Genetics Despite claims these plans are about recovering Mexican wolves, Wolf specialists have confirmed that interbreeding with Northern Gray wolves could overwhelm Mexican wolf genetics in as short as 20 years. Folks these plans are dangerous. These plans do not protect wildlife. These plans do not protect livestock. These plans would violate well-established limitations on federal authority. These plans are based on a dramatic overreaching. Please help us stop these plans from being forced on the good people of the Western United States. Ryan Benson http://biggameforever.org/ ryandbenson@msn.com facebook, & BGF Blog To get the latest information, news, and updates follow us on facebook click here, or read our blog by clicking here. Copyright © 2011 Big Game Forever 314 West Broadway #200, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 All Rights Reserved