501(c)(4)

[Ben Sellers]

Thinking on what’s been said about multiple issues (Colorado Wolves and Mt SB143 for example) it seems that we have a huge liability as an interest group. We (our chosen representative groups) don’t have the ability to lobby like other interested parties can. In general our favorite groups, as 501(c)(3) organizations are limited in their ability to lobby.

Since it appears that no true, nationwide lobbying group (that are not encumbered by the 501(c)(3) rules) for public land hunters and anglers exists, why don’t we create a 501 (c)(4) organization that can take up the shield and sword for our cause in ways that BHA and RMEF can’t?

 

[Big Fin]

Thinking on what’s been said about multiple issues (Colorado Wolves and Mt SB143 for example) it seems that we have a huge liability as an interest group. We (our chosen representative groups) don’t have the ability to lobby like other interested parties can. In general our favorite groups, as 501(c)(3) organizations are limited in their ability to lobby.

Since it appears that no true, nationwide lobbying group (that are not encumbered by the 501(c)(3) rules) for public land hunters and anglers exists, why don’t we create a 501 (c)(4) organization that can take up the shield and sword for our cause in ways that BHA and RMEF can’t?

That is a big challenge we face. A lot of us are brainstorming on how we can do exactly that.

 

[Ben Sellers]

Good deal! I was hoping there was something in the works. We need to be able to fight with both hands. Your SB134 podcast struck a chord with me. Personally, if a cause is worth donating to, I could care less whether it is a tax deduction.

 

[David Gough]

That is a big challenge we face. A lot of us are brainstorming on how we can do exactly that.

In Nevada there is the Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife. The board is comprised of current and former directors of 501(c)(3) organizations. The Coalition holds a lot of weight and can swing a heavy hammer with our representatives when needed. They also have a lobbyist for each legislative session - Nevada's just started on February 1st.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thinking on what’s been said about multiple issues (Colorado Wolves and Mt SB143 for example) it seems that we have a huge liability as an interest group. We (our chosen representative groups) don’t have the ability to lobby like other interested parties can. In general our favorite groups, as 501(c)(3) organizations are limited in their ability to lobby.

Since it appears that no true, nationwide lobbying group (that are not encumbered by the 501(c)(3) rules) for public land hunters and anglers exists, why don’t we create a 501 (c)(4) organization that can take up the shield and sword for our cause in ways that BHA and RMEF can’t?

There are a number of C4's out there, but the fundraising is damned difficult since it's not a tax-write off. NWF has a C4, as do a few other state affiliates. MSA is set up as a PAC I think (@shoots-straight knows better than I) and you are going to be competing against such giants as the NRA & NSSF as well as SCI - all of whom are lobby arms and work at the national level.

SO - it's really about money.

 

[nontyp]

There are a number of C4's out there, but the fundraising is damned difficult since it's not a tax-write off. NWF has a C4, as do a few other state affiliates. MSA is set up as a PAC I think (@shoots-straight knows better than I) and you are going to be competing against such giants as the NRA & NSSF as well as SCI - all of whom are lobby arms and work at the national level.

SO - it's really about money.

Well if @Big Fin gets one up and running Im betting the money will flow. I’ve got my checkbook ready.

 

[Ben Sellers]

In Nevada there is the Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife. The board is comprised of current and former directors of 501(c)(3) organizations. The Coalition holds a lot of weight and can swing a heavy hammer with our representatives when needed. They also have a lobbyist for each legislative session - Nevada's just started on February 1st.

Something like this group on a national level is exactly what we need to help fight the mismanagement of land and wildlife by legislation we’re seeing these days.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Well if @Big Fin gets one up and running Im betting the money will flow. I’ve got my checkbook ready.

Me too.

 

[ChaosOneZero]

It’s probably more appropriate for “us”, the collective, to go the PAC route, given most of the issues of substance to us involve political action and campaigns. Like @Ben Sellers mentioned, I think most of us would be comfortable making monetary contributions that aren’t tax deductible if those dollars went toward causes about which we feel strongly.

That said, it will/would be critical to ensure any future group maintains a tailored agenda so as to not encounter “mission creep,” I.e. venturing into issues outside of the public land hunting and wildlife conservation realm.

 

[David Gough]

Something like this group on a national level is exactly what we need to help fight the mismanagement of land and wildlife by legislation we’re seeing these days.

I believe each state should have their own version of this group. The Nevada Wildlife Coalition, a separate but related party arm of the Coalition above, is a PAC. There's no separate website for public optics reasons. Monetary contributions to Nevada legislators can easily be found by a quick google search. I attend their fundraiser every year.

 

[406LIFE]

Just a couple years ago we started to have this conversation in the falconry world and our 501c3 split off a new 501c4. As @Ben Lamb said, it really is about money. I think that's why so many stay small and local.

 

[Ben Sellers]

I believe each state should have their own version of this group. The Nevada Wildlife Coalition, a separate but related party arm of the Coalition above, is a PAC. There's no separate website for public optics reasons. Monetary contributions to Nevada legislators can easily be found by a quick google search. I attend their fundraiser every year.

I would hope for state or regional branches, but an overall nationwide org to handle Federal or multi state issues.

 

[David Gough]

It’s probably more appropriate for “us”, the collective, to go the PAC route, given most of the issues of substance to us involve political action and campaigns. Like @Ben Sellers mentioned, I think most of us would be comfortable making monetary contributions that aren’t tax deductible if those dollars went toward causes about which we feel strongly.

That said, it will/would be critical to ensure any future group maintains a tailored agenda so as to not encounter “mission creep,” I.e. venturing into issues outside of the public land hunting and wildlife conservation realm.

The dual 501c4 and PAC organization works well in Nevada. We won't always be able to lean on groups such as the California Rifle and Pistol Association when a hunting ban, ie bear hunting ban in California last month, comes up.

 

[Ben Sellers]

In jest, I would like to put forth the name Society of Hunters Anglers and Trappers, or SHAT.

 

[ChaosOneZero]

I would hope for state or regional branches, but an overall nationwide org to handle Federal or multi state issues.

Agreed. I think it would be helpful for western hunters who, like many in this forum, have equities at stake in multiple states. Having a national platform would allow greater ability to flex from one state to another, or confront challenges (legislative proposals, regulatory changes) in multiple states at once, rather than being tied to one state, or one species, as is the case, at present, with most groups.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

In jest, I would like to put forth the name Society of Hunters Anglers and Trappers, or SHAT.

Maybe American Secret Society of Hunters Anglers and Trappers

 

[David Gough]

Agreed. I think it would be helpful for western hunters who, like many in this forum, have equities at stake in multiple states. Having a national platform would allow greater ability to flex from one state to another, or confront challenges (legislative proposals, regulatory changes) in multiple states at once, rather than being tied to one state, or one species, as is the case, at present, with most groups.

I think you'd need one at each governmental body, state and federal. You can build relationships with your state representatives and hire a lobbyist to do some of the heavy lifting. It provides 501c3 state chapters an opportunity to bounce ideas off one another and form a united front. I think you would need something similar and to scale at the federal level.

 

[SAJ-99]

Thinking on what’s been said about multiple issues (Colorado Wolves and Mt SB143 for example) it seems that we have a huge liability as an interest group. We (our chosen representative groups) don’t have the ability to lobby like other interested parties can. In general our favorite groups, as 501(c)(3) organizations are limited in their ability to lobby.

Since it appears that no true, nationwide lobbying group (that are not encumbered by the 501(c)(3) rules) for public land hunters and anglers exists, why don’t we create a 501 (c)(4) organization that can take up the shield and sword for our cause in ways that BHA and RMEF can’t?

I think the problem is a little deeper and more complicated than that. Our political discourse has grown from a lack of willingness to negotiate and compromise. After listening to the podcast on SB143, I would be willing to be more supportive of the bill and MOGA's position if they push legislators to tweak the language on accessing public land through the easement. It is MOGA's bill, tell them to change it. Promising MT resident hunters something that comes with a bunch of conditions in the fine print doesn't do us any good. But with Repubs leading all branches of government, they basically are going to cram all kinds of stuff down our throat and without any compromise, and we have to take it. Then when power shifts, those on the short end of 143 will try to cram it down their opponents throat. That is hard to overcome. Both sides have to accept some solution equating to a Nash Equilibrium. Instead, they chose a destructive path that leads to instability in the future. Money won't solve the instability problem, but it would give us more power.

 

[Ben Sellers]

I think the problem is a little deeper and more complicated than that. Our political discourse has grown from a lack of willingness to negotiate and compromise. After listening to the podcast on SB143, I would be willing to be more supportive of the bill and MOGA's position if they push legislators to tweak the language on accessing public land through the easement. It is MOGA's bill, tell them to change it. Promising MT resident hunters something that comes with a bunch of conditions in the fine print doesn't do us any good. But with Repubs leading all branches of government, they basically are going to cram all kinds of stuff down our throat and without any compromise, and we have to take it. Then when power shifts, those on the short end of 143 will try to cram it down their opponents throat. That is hard to overcome. Both sides have to accept some solution equating to a Nash Equilibrium. Instead, they chose a destructive path that leads to instability in the future. Money won't solve the instability problem, but it would give us more power.

I’m not going to try to discount the political challenges we face, even within the factions under the Outdoorsperson’s tent. Those challenges are real, but the failure to have a strong lobbying force is a rather substantial vulnerability. Historically we have not “needed” such an organization, but hopefully the Wolf vote in Colorado has opened people’s eyes. We depend to the BHA and RMEF to be our voice, but in many cases they aren’t allowed to speak.

 

[David Gough]

I think the problem is a little deeper and more complicated than that. Our political discourse has grown from a lack of willingness to negotiate and compromise. After listening to the podcast on SB143, I would be willing to be more supportive of the bill and MOGA's position if they push legislators to tweak the language on accessing public land through the easement. It is MOGA's bill, tell them to change it. Promising MT resident hunters something that comes with a bunch of conditions in the fine print doesn't do us any good. But with Repubs leading all branches of government, they basically are going to cram all kinds of stuff down our throat and without any compromise, and we have to take it. Then when power shifts, those on the short end of 143 will try to cram it down their opponents throat. That is hard to overcome. Both sides have to accept some solution equating to a Nash Equilibrium. Instead, they chose a destructive path that leads to instability in the future. Money won't solve the instability problem, but it would give us more power.

I agree in part; it depends on the issue. Complete bans on species, use of hounds or bait, and other blatant attacks on hunting, fishing, and trapping shouldn't move an inch. Others will needs compromise. In Nevada's 2019 session an anti-trapping bill died because a compromise was met. Another bill, one that would allow the donation of Nevada's coveted big game tags to non-profits for "hunt of a lifetime" opportunities with children and veterans, was pulled. They didn't seem related, but that's the compromise that was met at the eleventh hour of the session.

I'm probably missing some details off the top of my head, but that was the jist.

There's a lot of compromise being done with a naval base expansion in the area. Even with the vast coalition of organizations working to save public land access and wildlife habitat there have been a couple years of negotiating with the DOD and Congress.