It is known conservation initiatives and environmental non-governmental organizations (NGO) reap in large sums of money as non-profits for their agendas. Much of this money comes from John Q taxpayer through grants from the federal government, wealthy foundations, and private donations. Tax filings explain what happens with this money. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC) seems to be one of the more well funded organizations and is registered as a 501(c)3 in Montana. Interestingly, GYC is registered as a "foreign" non-profit corporation in Idaho (type Greater Yellowstone Coalition in the search box), most likely because it is registered in Montana, initially filing in 1985. 501(c)3 organizations are often called charities, or non-profits, can receive tax deductible contributions, and are tax exempt. There are certain requirements a 501(c)3 must follow including restrictions on lobbying, political activities, and political campaign intervention. Lobbying is defined as "influencing" legislation. However, a 501(c)3 can engage in public advocacy not related to legislation or a election of candidates. Front groups that are created by these large organizations do the lobbying for them. In the PDF below there is information on GYC lobbying expenditures from 2016. On page 8, Forbes-Tate Partners in Washington, DC was paid $116,300 to do the lobbying for GYC. It is unclear from this document what lobbying activities were pursued by GYC via this organization. On page 25, GYC reports spending $18,778 for lobbying to influence public opinion (grass roots lobbying). Another $118,957 was spent to "influence a legislative body (direct lobbying)". There is also a chart of a 4 year averaging period, over 1 million was spent on lobbying. GYC justifies some of their activities as a charity organization beginning on page 48-49. Their listed objectives include protecting core habitat...facilitating connectivity between Yellowstone Bears...new programs for voluntary grazing allotment retirements, construction of highway wildlife crossing structures...and expanding our work on protecting wildlife migratory corridors across greater Yellowstone. It goes on to state GYC's lands program is focused on securing new protections...for this landscape...permanently protecting...building solid momentum behind a partnership that is seeking to protect critical wildlife habitat on private lands in the Henry's Fork watershed, and advocating for new administrative protections on the BLM lands. Lofty goals, but with their lobbying efforts in D.C. perhaps they will succeed. They are also using their money to buy "voluntary grazing allotment retirements", one reason ranchers are having such a difficult time feeding their herds, GYC buys up this land and locks it up forever.
Another GYC tax form that contains interesting information is from 2014, in the PDF below. Page 44 explains their "Program Service Accomplishments" and includes working "...closely with our national partners to ensure important conservation measures are not undermined, protecting public lands..in the High Divide in Wyoming, "...celebrate a significant win as we finalize the Shoshone National Forests new forest plan, which will put almost one million acres off limits to oil & gas development", and at least acknowledges their intent to "ensure key forest lands are protected from expanded motorized use as the Shoshone launches a travel planning process in Eastern Idaho". They finalized the Shoshone plan? Why not, on page 33 it shows GYC gave the US Forest Service $125,000 for bear bins. Guess the forest service owes them a favor.
In 2015, GYC gave another $137,000 to the US Forest Service for bear proof containers, page 34. On page 36, GYC gave Wyoming Wild Sheep $100,000 for a grazing allotment buyout, another conservation group. This is what GYC is doing with your tax dollar from the federal government.
Read through these documents, look at the numbers. It is no wonder local citizens have to scream so loudly to have their voice heard when these type of groups are buying favors from the government and taking land away from you.
0 Comments
Re-published with permission from the IP News
In studying the scoping report, I have found in each comment period a lengthy guidance/suggestion comment submitted jointly by The Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. At this time, I will not address the majority content, it is very comprehensive. I would like, however, to address a single sentence found in the first comment they submitted. “A separate letter was submitted regarding both Targhee Pass and other statewide ITIP projects by GYC, Y2Y, and other partners throughout the state and region, which also requested funding to implement wildlife passage mitigations.” Citation #11 reads: Weskamp, David, (The Nature Conservancy), Laatsch, Jamie, (Henry’s Fork Foundation), Rinaldi, Kathy, (Greater Yellowstone Coalition), Trotter, Kim, (Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative), VanFleet, Mary and Parmer (various affiliations), Seidler, Renee, (Wildlife Conservation Society), and Reynolds Ph.D., Timothy (wildlife biologist). Letter to Idaho Transportation Department, Attn. Adam Rush, Comments on Idaho Transportation Department 2017-2021 Idaho Transportation Investment Program. 29 July, 2016. Please note the date on that letter: 7-29-16 This is 6 months before ITD ever came to Island Park to talk about a project on US 20, and it would not be until the end of July 2017 that ITD would tell Fremont County and IP that wildlife overpasses were included in the alternatives. The advocates promoting wildlife overpass alternatives at Targhee Pass are represented in citation #11. From that July 2016 date, you can conclude that these ‘special interests’ had an entire year to seek other agency and non-governmental organizations support for the overpasses. Since they had partnered with ITD in HWY 20 analysis, they also were aware of the ITIP planning effort and potential HWY 20 projects. They all knew. They were all collaborating far in advance. The community of Island Park and Fremont County did not. We have not been involved, informed or coordinated with in this process. Island Park and Fremont County should request and be given a copy of that letter. Leanne Yancey |