A Unified Voice - A Wildlife Defense Federation?

[Sytes]

We speak a whoop-load about the collective eco-enviro extremes and their assault on "science based" wildlife conservation, we, hunters value.
We did a good job with the unified voice from most known organizations to counter the "Cats Aren't Trophy" agenda and it paid off at least compared to the blunder over the ballot box forced wolf re-intro... both within the Colorado anti-hunt fertile battleground.

How about a Unified Council of Wildlife Conservation. It could be based on the population of each organization's members:
#1. Defines the $ the organization pay's into the collective fund,
#2. Identifies the voting strength of the organization for issues facing wildlife conservation.
(Very bone basic structure, though gives an idea)

Why would an organization want to pay into and join? Because they represent hunters that care about our wildlife and clearly see / feel the challenges that confront us.

Representatives of each organization who become a part of this "Council" are prepared to vote on action or no action for issues raised.
To be clear, this is NOT a 2A inclusive, rather a specific "Wildlife Defense Federation". This would also hold the potential for its own member base in support of the collective intent.

Anything of this nature exist, in the works, or being discussed?

Does this describe the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation? Would come off better if the public name held a far greater audience potential, such as The Wildlife Defense Federation, IMO.

"The Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation is a 501(c)3 organization and protects and defends America’s wildlife conservation programs and the pursuits – hunting, fishing and trapping – that generate the money to pay for them. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation is responsible for public education, legal defense and research. Its mission is accomplished through several distinct programs coordinated to provide the most complete defense capability possible."

Anyone in the know, know? @Big Fin or others?

 

[nontyp]

Sounds a little bit like TRCP if I am understanding correctly.

TRCP Partners

 

[BuzzH]

What sportsmen need is a PAC, heavily funded if they want to compete for public lands, wildlife, hunting, fishing, etc.

501 c3 status hamstrings sportsmen and public lands advocates.

 

[Forkyfinder]

What sportsmen need is a PAC, heavily funded if they want to compete for public lands, wildlife, hunting, fishing, etc.

501 c3 status hamstrings sportsmen and public lands advocates.

The problem with that - not nearly enough hunters get it. Especially public land and development (whatever the source).

Need proof - there are morons (hunters?) around cheering the sale of public just hoping for a transferable land owner tag they are likely too poor to afford.

 

[cgasner1]

It would probably be hard to put something like this together since most groups have a hard enough time supporting or opposing things that fall into their area. I don’t see the major groups joining into something like that and hoping the sportsman’s alliance didn’t go full send on something against one groups core values. While it’s a fantastic idea I don’t see it working on that alone.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I am not discounting the value of an organization like you describe. However, I think for states where hunting and fishing is under attack, we need a 501c4 at the state level that can fight for hunters and anglers at the state house, wildlife commission, and the ballot box. I believe Colorado has something like this now. Based on the way things are going most every state will need this type of organization. If the fight isn’t there now, it is coming. Then there could be an umbrella national organization that supports those state level 501c4 organizations. That being said, there are HuntTalkers with far more experience in wildlife NGOs than me so I will sit back and listen.