WHO TO TRUST?

I have written several articles recently that concerned the ongoing campaigns to eliminate most of the excise taxes that support State fishing management programs. Here is a quick summary of what I have said.

State fish and wildlife agencies are the government entities responsible for the management of all sport fishing in the United States with but a few exceptions. Certain Federal lands (a tiny minority) where the Federal government has Exclusive Jurisdiction and coastal waters on oceans or the Great Lakes are areas where State authority is limited but still requires active State cooperation with Federal agencies to maintain sport fishing and the annual harvest of fish species.

A major portion of all State fish and wildlife fishing program budgets (20 to 35%?) comes from the collection of excise taxes and import duties on fishing tackle and motorboat fuel taxes. The funds are collected by the IRS and Customs and transferred to the US Fish and Wildlife Service where they are held and apportioned annually to State agencies for SPORT (per the law) fishing programs based on criteria such as area of the State, population, and fishing license sales. The current collections of such taxes and import duties total $400 to $500 Million each year.

Last year (2004) tackle box manufacturers silently lobbied successfully to have the 11% excise tax on tackle boxes reduced to 3%. This resulted in an unmentioned loss of funds probably in the neighborhood of $6 to $10 Million annually. Archery manufacturers (who pay an excise tax on bows and arrows that similarly goes to State agencies for hunting programs) silently “partnered” with the tackle manufacturers in lobbying Congress and were also successful in having the excise tax removed entirely from certain bows and arrows. These excise taxes had been in place and supporting fishing and hunting programs for over half a century. The US Fish and Wildlife Service knew what was going on but remained silent. Hunting and fishing organizations were likewise silent about what they knew was going on.

Emboldened by last year’s success, the manufacturers are surreptitiously lobbying Congress for an even more radical proposal. Copies of suggested language, phone calls, and quiet lunches all over Capitol Hill are accelerating as the lobbyists “suggest” removing the excise tax entirely from all fishing tackle except rods and reels. Consult your tackle box and the stuff in your garage to see what you would no longer pay an excise tax on. Although, like last years undefined loss of excise tax revenue, this current proposal will slash well over half of the fishing excise taxes; nowhere is there any discussion of either the loss of revenue or the impact on sport fishing programs and sport fishing nationwide. The proposed language would be dropped in a 1,000+ page tax bill and would be unrecognizable to anyone except a tax lawyer. The Committee that oversees the excise tax programs would be kept in the dark as much as possible and only a “tax” committee would know it was buried in tons of arcane provisions and subheadings. The only justification for this concerns the “cost” of collecting the excise taxes.

I have speculated, based on over thirty years in the business, about the reasons for this sad and threatening state of affairs. The manufacturers are increasingly large, diversified corporations. Like Eddie Bauer, they can shift from sporting items to casual dress items seamlessly. While the tackle box excise tax has been decreased 8%, the price of tackle boxes where I live has remained unchanged and those funds are now listed under “profit”. The State agencies and their lobby group are tighter than ticks with the manufacturers, the “conservation” organizations, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Personnel jump back and forth and common meetings and feeds happen as regular as rain in the tropics. All of these outfits are convinced that, in this case, fishing’s days are numbered (thanks to the environmental and animal rights organizations that are more and more part of the “group” and who they are all reluctant to oppose). They all think the future (read that funds) lies with Federal appropriated funds doled out by Congress and that excise taxes, like fishermen, are soon to be found only in museums and roadside exhibits. To publicize or recognize what I am writing about jeopardizes public acceptance of such future funding being granted by Congress. If there is scandal and betrayal of the magnitude I write about, the chance of losing both current funding (the excise taxes) and future appropriated funding from Congress (Wildlife Grants, Conservation Grants, Landowner Incentive Program Grants, CARA, GO, etc.) is too great a risk to take. These emerging programs do not even require public access and do not benefit the public according to oversight reviews of grants to date.

For doing this, there has been generated a torrent of criticism centered on me as a “bitter” former employee who was “fired”. The bottom line here according to the experts and professionals is that how could one such guy be right and all “our” organizations be so wrong? I leave it to each reader to decide for him or her self. The lack of audits at nearly every level and the weight of denial from the “experts” make this a difficult decision for the layman. It would be very easy for me to walk away from this, my wife for one would be happy to see that happen. However, I will not. Indeed I will report to you yet more scandal and for those of you that consider me a “liar” and weaver of “half-truths” I have two suggestions for your next get-together with “our” fishing organizations and their State and Federal “partners”.

Today, much if not most fishing tackle is manufactured in China. Many of the US manufacturers buy from or own such businesses in China. Most are honest, some are not. A significant portion of the China-produced fishing tackle is transshipped through either Guam, Mexico, or Canada (there may be other such sites with which I am unfamiliar). Much of this fishing tackle is relabeled and described as products ON WHICH THERE IS NO EXCISE TAX DUE. Other relabelling describes fishing nets as carpet material or describes material on which LITTLE OR NO IMPORT DUTIES (often due to NAFTA) and reduced excise taxes will be due. Country of origin “adjustments” likewise reduce import duties and excise taxes. Such products ARE OFTEN sold at high volume trade shows or even from local stores. Increased utilization of UPS and Fed Ex complicates the investigation and prosecution necessary to bring this under control. If indicated trends continue, losses to the State sport fishing programs may reach $100 to $130 Million annually. The lack of oversight here has allowed smuggling to not only flourish and gain in profitability; it has nourished a high degree of sophisticated lawlessness that brings in Millions.

One US Fish and Wildlife Service employee (since encouraged to retire) pointed this out to US Fish and Wildlife Service managers last year and then to US Customs. Customs was polite but pointed out that between Homeland Security and much bigger smuggling schemes; fishing tackle excise tax and import duty evasion was low priority to say the least. However, they agreed that they would try to shut it down but they would need a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with US Fish and Wildlife Service that laid out the specifics of what was expected and how Customs would do this.

To date, the employee who exposed the scheme has retired and there is NO MOU and NO work on developing one. The reasons are many but boil down to there is no one in US Fish and Wildlife Service with the interest or the skill to develop such an MOU. Also, as pointed out previously, all the States and “our” organizations, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service do not want any scandal to taint the opportunity for future Congressional-appropriated funding (Billions are often discussed and proposed). Similarly, the fishing tackle manufacturers are of two kinds, one does not want the taint of scandal in their business, the other does not want profitable schemes disrupted or any threat of exposure or prosecution.

So here are two suggestions to all you folks that believe the US Fish and Wildlife Service (the Federal administrator of the excise taxes and import duty funds – for which they are paid annually from the funds) really wants to protect fishing and fishermen. First, ask them to complete the MOU with US Customs to interdict and prosecute fishing tackle entering the United States without paying the excise taxes and import duties. If I am wrong, they will come up empty and I will be the fool you proclaim.

Second, here is a novel idea. The US Fish and Wildlife Service spends hundreds of Millions on Law Enforcement. They have Wildlife Inspectors at Ports-of-Entry. These are the US Fish and Wildlife Service employees that did NOT question the importation of wolves from Canada 10 years ago that were imported by the US Fish and Wildlife Service WITHOUT PERMITS OR PAPERWORK for the Yellowstone wolf introductions. Contrast that with the following recent news item:

--- “The deposed manager of a local wildlife refuge will pay a $3,500 fine to avoid facing criminal charges for illegally moving 400 tadpoles protected by the Endangered Species Act.
In January 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed Wayne
Shifflett from his post at Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge after he
transported Chiricahua leopard frogs from a Tucson biologist's back yard
to the refuge.”---

They have Special Agents that work long, hard hours to put a rancher or hunter in jail for killing a wolf but ignore Migratory Bird nest destruction by the rich and powerful in Manhattan, overlooking Central Park. What about tasking Law Enforcement Special Agents and Inspectors with helping US Customs to shut down the importation of fishing tackle that avoids excise tax payment and import duties? The Law Enforcement folks have never done anything in this regard to date and they (since they are all highly-trained and highly-paid) will no doubt look down on such non-glamorous work, especially since it only benefits State agencies that everyone “knows” are steadily becoming mere local appendages of Federal bureaucrats. So suggest at the next meeting and buffet that US Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement policy be changed or if they complain, wording be dropped in the next Appropriations Bill directing US Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement to cooperate with US Customs to assure the payment of excise taxes on all imported fishing tackle, archery items, or arms and ammunition.

Regulations that would force all fishing tackle (like all wildlife and wildlife products) to enter at designated ports-of-entry, where US Fish and Wildlife personnel check paperwork and work with Customs is merely a matter of dropping wording just before Congress adjourns into an “Omnibus Appropriations Bill” that the President must sign to keep the government solvent. That way hearings or open review would not be necessary, you know like last years excise tax “changes”.

Such disgraceful tactics successfully gave the US Fish and Wildlife Service authority to drop Federal protection on all non-native birds named on the Migratory Bird treaty Act for over 80 years. They also allowed an Ohio Congressman who has no Federal lands in his district to give the five largest Federal land management agencies authority to charge and keep access and recreational fees on public lands. In the first case the US Fish and Wildlife Service drafted the language that a “friendly” politician dropped into a spending bill at “midnight”. In the other, an Ohio Congressman gained points with Eastern environmentalists by giving already oppressive Federal agencies more power over Western public land users. Both occurred last November, after the election and just before “adjournment”. Really, neither of these differs much from the tactics used last year by the tackle box and archery manufacturers and the results are the same – empowering Federal bureaucrats and shrinking the guarantees in our Constitution that protect individuals and call for open government.

I know I am a real “jerk” for embarrassing “our” “friends”, exposing this, and making these suggestions. I know it would be better not to speak of these things. I know I should join the chorus and whine about how the State agencies and the US Fish and Wildlife Service need “more” or whatever will soon collapse. I know we can trust the manufacturers of sporting goods and our conservation organizations. There are no hidden agendas here and we are getting the best representation money can buy. Yep and I just found your lost dog and if you send me $85 for a cage and $300 for transportation I will send him to you. Here is my PO Box # and make the check out to “Cash”.

Jim Beers
3 March 2005
If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91

Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
JimBeers7@earthlink.net