Y2Y Tax Forms Tell A Compelling Story
Y2Y 05′, 06′, & 07′ Tax Years
While reviewing tax forms may at times seem tedious and irrelevant, it really tells a compelling story about the massive growth of this organization financially, the power base it was building with prominent individuals to roll over citizen rights, their clear intent to control land use, and the deliberate, manipulative, and sequential steps they were building upon to achieve these goals, which both Canada and the U.S. are plagued with now. Have faith, this is worth the read.
A brief summary was given on the 05′ Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) tax years in the 01’-02’ article, however a few points not mentioned are provided here. The address change to Bozeman from Missoula for Y2Y-MT in the 04′ form remains. In the 05′ form a total revenue of $675,258 was listed, a drop from the previous year.
On page 6, retained Canadian officers include Buffler, Bewick, and Guth with two new additions Lorraine Laplante, at the time Director of Marketing and Communications, and Melodie Creegan, a marketing expert, both for the purposes of promoting Y2Y. Two new U.S. additions are listed, Charles Chester from Massachusetts who teaches transborder conservation, and Steve Duerr from Jackson, Wyoming, a developer and attorney with a rather extensive resume, and international involvement. The remaining retained officers are listed on page 18, Peart, Russell-Towe, and Sawchuck, but the list is shorter. This is really rounding out how they plan to market themselves and redesign land use. Christine Torgrimson, page 7, was paid $30,990 Canadian dollars for her work as part of her program, however, it is unknown what her work entailed, its relationship to Y2Y, and if the payment came from Y2Y-MT.
The form still lists being related to Y2Y-Alberta but the requirement to identify Y2Y-Alberta as the paid independent contractor is on page 10, an astonishing amount of $911,000, broken down into $749,650 for program services, $49,000 for management and general, and $112,250 for fundraising on page 3. Similar to the previous year more money is being funneled to Canada. Why? On page 20 it states the Y2Y Conservation Initiative Society, that is Y2Y-Alberta, has not applied for federal tax exemption in the U.S.. Was this the U.S. law, or treaty, that covered this type of transaction?
Page 19 gets interesting. Three Canadian employees were compensated by Y2Y-Alberta for their work. Buffler was paid $113,998, Bewick $68,644, and Laplante $66,951. That is a total of $249,593 Canadian dollars split between them, a quarter of a million dollars without any clear indication of what they did other than book keeping for Y2Y-MT and marketing. Were these amounts taken from the $911,000 that Y2Y-Montana sent to them for management and general activities? The IRS does allow compensation of members, but since it is a U.S. 501(c)3, does it allow payment to individuals in another country? How does that work with paying taxes and other requirements for a U.S. non-profit?
Y2Y-MT claims on page 21 the governing body mission is to represent “broad public interests”. What public interests have been represented by this group? There is no public engagement about the objectives they want to pursue for banning public land use, taking ownership of as much land as possible by various means, nestling themselves into government agencies, using funding to promote themselves and oppose citizens, while chastising and dismissing those who do not agree with them. What representation was offered to those who use the land? None.
It is astonishing they passed an audit for this tax year, page 25. The “Y2Y’ financial statements by an auditor starts on page 26 with a rehash of their structure on page 32. Page 33 identifies Y2Y-Montana receiving “…88% of its total revenue from two foundations.”, and as of 12/31/05 “…81% of its total receivables are with one foundation.” Those are U.S. foundations. What are the goals of these foundation to fund this agenda, what is it that they want? An explanation of how dues are paid is listed on page 22.
But there was also some other interesting activity going on at the same time in 05′. Below is a 2005 Yellowstone to Yukon report on Grizzly Bear Conservation in the Yellowstone to Yukon Region by Troy Merrill, one of the original Y2Y board members. This report was commissioned by Y2Y with the “…LTB Institute of Landscape Ecology to conduct the modeling work on grizzly bears…”, with Y2Y planning “…to use the information in this report to guide its conservation activities for grizzly bears in western North America.” It just so happens that Troy Merrill is also the Research Director of LTB Institute of Landscape Ecology, a business registered in Idaho but with very little information regarding its function. Another undated report on grizzlies was prepared for Alberta, Canada.
Funding for this report was provided by the Wilburforce, Summerlee, and Earth Friends Wildlife foundations, and the LaSalle Adams Fund. As a former board member did Merrill have indirect access to Y2Y funding for his own business through his contacts? Was part of the $411,209 spent on conservation, page 4, used for these studies or used for a separate objective? Y2Y commissioned this study, what money was used for it?
More truth is given on what Y2Y is doing on conservation, page 17. “We study the habitat needs of wildlife in the Rocky, Purcell, and McKenzie Mountains to determine which core habitats and connecting areas are needed for wildlife populations to survive over time”. “We thus make Y2Y science as a tool for making land management decisions…”. Y2Y believes they have the authority, and are the only ones with expertise, on how land should be used and governed. That is why they are so aggressive with their objectives. By its own admission, Y2Y states, “Since its inception 20 years ago, Y2Y has used grizzly bears as the main indicator species to develop its conservation strategy.” This is a calculated intent and the grizzy is in the crosshairs.
All of this money was being dumped into setting up the foundation and agenda with grizzlies being used for eventual banned land use. This grizzly agenda has now been focused down to Alberta, and the Purcell mountains in northern Idaho. Grizzlies are being used as an “umbrella” species, meaning its use captures many other species for conservation. Y2Y deliberately set up these grizzly studies to justify their goal of banning land use. Prohibiting land use is their only agenda. It is clear that over 5 years Y2Y-MT is becoming a very well oiled machine, ready to decide your fate with land use, omitting your involvement by including only those who serve their agenda, while taking government, and your money, to do it.
By 06′, revenues skyrocketed to $1,258,931, page 2. Transfer of funds to Y2Y-Alberta under contract services is now $1,063,200, divided between program services $787,200, management and general $81,000, and fundraising $195,000, page 3, but shows a discrepancy with 1,053,200 on page 10. What happened to that extra $10,000? It appears they are advancing their agenda in Alberta as much as possible. Why?
Page 6 lists Buffler, Bewick, Creegan, and Lapante as retained Canadian board members. New additions are Sean Britt, who previously worked at Earthwatch Institute, and Susan Chatwood, who specializes in promoting partnerships, addressing inequities in climate change, indigenous values, geographical “challenges”, and is a university professor. Ament, Baldes, Chester, and Duerr are retained on the U.S. side.
But there are some new additions on page 20. Guth, the Woodcock Foundation guy, Peart, Russell-Towe, and Sawchuck remain from Canada. New from Canada is Tracy Summerville, another university professor. Hadden and Johns remain from the U.S. side, but Jody Hilty, currently the Y2Y President and Chief Scientist, joins the board, along with Stephen Meador from Abbeville, Louisiana, who brings experience in tax services. That is an interesting twist to this group.
On page 14, over 4 years, 02′-05′, Y2Y-MT contributions and grants received grew to $3,536,096, with $505,856 going to conservation in just 06′, page 4. It looks like the investment in marketing is working.
By 07′, there is now a P.O. box listed as the Y2Y-MT address in Bozeman, with an increase in total revenues to $2,236,952 on page 2. Is this increased funding coming from foundations, government grants, or private donations? On page 6 is one new Canadian member, Michael Code, who currently works for the Banff Centre, but served as development director on the board. A very interesting addition to the board on page 18 is another Canadian, David Luff, who at the time was the Vice-President of Environment and Operations for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) (pg 2). CAPP previously funded two grizzly bear research projects and Mr. Luff was defending how this industry was conscientious of protecting the environment, even writing about it in 2002. Now in 07′ he is on the Y2Y board. One new U.S. addition listed on page 18 is Shawn Fitzgibbons, whose background is in the health field but previously worked for Earthwatch.
On page 3, under contract services, the funneling of money to Y2Y-Alberta is also more generous, a total of $2,222,397 divided between program services $1,974,897, management and general $42,500, and a whopping $205,000 for fundraising. Although noted the same on previous tax forms, Y2Y-Alberta being a related organization with common officers, it continues to be checked as a “non-exempt” organization, page 7. Is Y2Y-Alberta not a registered “charity” with exempt status?
More clarity on Y2Y objectives is given on page 4. They report studies in the Rocky, Purcell, and Mackenzie Mountains were targeted for core habitats needed for wildlife, citing grizzlies and “human needs”, and two other species. This science is made available for land management decisions. Program services expenses for this was $1,455,849. Another $576,800 was spent to “communicate” this information to governments and others. Since 05′, they were funneling more money into their prize grizzly, using science with subjective predetermined outcomes to select target areas they wanted to ban from use, whether by designated parks or wilderness areas, or controlling restrictions on use. Grizzlies were just the handy patsy for their goal.
A new individual is identified as the U.S. Regional Director, Penelope Pierce, who was compensated $52,429 for her work. Ms. Pierce is now the Gallatin Valley Land Trust Executive Director in Montana, increasing land placed into permanent non-use with conservation easements and ballooning their operating budget over one million dollars. It is unclear what her role was as Regional Director, perhaps the same.
Payment in Canadian dollars to Buffler, $101,768, Bewick $61,426, Laplante 58,114, Britt $59,137, and Code $64,681 are listed on page 19. Why are U.S. board directors not receiving compensation? From 03′-06′ contribution amounts totaled $3,939,065, around $400,000 more than 02′-05′, page 14.
So there you have it. By 07′ this organization was pulling in enough money to conduct biased studies which would support their eventual goal of banning land use between two countries, while using the grizzly as an umbrella species to expand on the amount of land to take for non-use. More money was flowing from the U.S. to Canada, with a question as to whether or not Canadian board members were being compensated from that money, and if extra allocations of money were given for grizzly studies. However, what is clear, is that Y2Y was setting up the foundation for exploitation and manipulation of grizzlies for their agenda, a species that would justify their intent to ban land use across two countries. In both Canada and the U.S. the grizzly is declared a threatened species. In 2017 the grizzly was removed from the U.S. list but a federal judge decided it should remain on the list.
As a result, the grizzly is now overpopulated, thus the reason for delisting in the U.S.. With more grizzlies there is naturally more contact with us, which Y2Y and other groups can then claim are “conflicts“. This serves the agenda for demanding more banned land use and development, and placement of land into “protective” status. Or at its worst, the unnecessary destruction of the animal. Y2Y and all of these groups are willing to go to this extent, manipulation of an animal, to achieve their goal. It has also given them the opportunity to insert themselves into our lives with bear proof trash containers, just part of the subtle ways in which they want to regulate how we live. This bogus crisis was set up clear back in 05′ by Y2Y and we are now experiencing the devastating outcomes for us and the grizzly. All of their work, studies, and claims were for this purpose, and they won’t give up until they get all of what they want.
Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our stories to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews
By nature, environmental organizations are complex in how the raise and move money, their political ties, and their shadowy consultant and legal relationships. It is big business that in many cases completely loses focus on any original purpose that was sold to the public.
They thrive on this complexity because so few are likely to take the time to listen and learn, or even understand the hidden damage once greed and political activism takes over.
It is not coincidental that they all have one thing in common- they gain their power and sustain their growth through political ties and leftist activism.