BHA Funding

[Ben Long]

hossblur, that's pretty weak tea. By all means, put your money where you think it will do the most good. No group is good for everyone. We live in polarized, partisan times. IME all that really doesn't matter much in the woods.

 

[npaden]

Thanks for your time and I apologize for driving you down this rabbit hole.

The below post seems that he was insinuating they lumped corporate product donations somewhere to skew #s which may have something to do with the 60%.

View attachment 124119

Not sure how he could be getting his 60% number unless he is using a different calculator than me. The numbers in 2018 are much lower than 2017, I get a max of 35% in 2018 and I don't have the 990 for Western Conservation for 2018 so I can't figure out which of the 2018 contributions over 2% of revenue was from them in 2018 to calculate it with or without their number.

I don't see anything on in-kind donations, I know some of the life memberships give free products but those organizations (Kimber, Seek Outside, etc.) don't seem like anti-hunting organizations to me. The way those revenues would be recorded would be as membership revenues though.

 

[LuketheDog]

They were picked 3rd in the NFC Central and ended 2nd so maybe a little underrated - but our season is over (we just have a painful trip to NO to prove it).

I'll have to admit, as a Green Bay fan I'm not filled with confidence either even though they ended with a good record...

 

[npaden]

Yesterday I got sidetracked looking into the specific dollars and % of some of the original claims noted. While they do seem to be exaggerated, I would say that they do have a point. Whether it is 35% or 60%, there does appear to be a large amount of funding coming in from some unknown sources.

The claim that they are coming in as grants that are to be used for specific purposes would seem to be plausible, many of the nonprofit entities I do financial statement audits for receive grants from private foundations and sometimes they do have some strings attached. Sometimes they are very specific on exactly what they can be spent on, sometimes it is very general. I've even seen some private foundations give enough funding that they wanted a spot on the board of the public charity and the money was enough that the public charity gave them the spot on the board. Most nonprofits that I audit are going to fall over themselves to accept a large grant no matter who it is that is giving them the grant. Darth Vader could give them a grant and if it was something that they felt they could use to further their exempt purpose, they would accept it and go on with their mission. Would their mission be suddenly slanted toward the dark side? It would probably depend on whether or not Darth Vader indicated that he would be willing to give them more money in the future based on how good of a job he felt they did on spending his money.

I haven't researched any of the other organizations that were claimed to be rabid anti-hunting, but I'm assuming that definition may be like the 60% claim, a bit exaggerated. I would guess that these are organizations that the left leaning management of BHA knows in some form or fashion and most people associate that with gun control and other things. I know the Fund for a Better Future organization gave $1,000,000 to Planned Parenthood in 2017 so many conservatives won't like that, but although they were noted in the original claims, they didn't show to have given any money to BHA in 2017. Even then it is one of those bucket things, we want everyone to line up with our bucket exactly and it just doesn't seem to be an option anymore.

I just wanted to clarify my overall thoughts on the topic and not be narrowly focused just on the dollars and %'s and whether they are accurate or not.

 

[hossblur]

hossblur, that's pretty weak tea. By all means, put your money where you think it will do the most good. No group is good for everyone. We live in polarized, partisan times. IME all that really doesn't matter much in the woods.

How? BHA signing on to renewable development would be like RMEF calling for cutting back elk expansion. MDF calling for fewer mule deer.

They didn't just stay neutral. They actively pushed the bill.

As to the Utah thing. Was there a better politician up for election last cycle to get tossed than Rob Bishop? I get all the press release from BHA. His name is constantly coming up.

Yet, nothing from national.

Maybe in Montana they are more present. But in Utah, it's a very small handful of folks.

Even My chapter pres, or Grizz could get anything more than a press release from TRCP about renewable development.

Land responded back on an IG piece on National Park camping with a smart ads answer. I still have yet to hear or get anything other than PR releases.

But Land had lots of time to bash Trump on interwebs.

Asl around. See how many board members, life members, and foot soldiers LOVE the mission statement of BHA, but have left or pulled back because of where BHA is TODAY.

One such guy told me he wasnt looking for a fraternity, or dudes to drink beer with.

That's about all that happens in Utah.

Lots of talking. Lots of "shock jock" lines in social media. No action.

 

[Oregon_Ryan]

After reading through four (4) pages of this, I have to say I'm pretty disappointed. How much time and energy was wasted on playing internet forensic accountant based on a thinly sourced "instagram meme", and how could that energy and time be better spent working local conservation issues. I'd much rather do stream bank improvements, outreach, advocacy, and generally putting the work in to make things better for all, rather than get all chapped over BHA (or RMEF, TU, DU, PF, etc). If you don't like BHA, fine, don't join; instead join another conservation group, and put the work in instead of complaining about what the other guy is doing.

 

[hossblur]

After reading through four (4) pages of this, I have to say I'm pretty disappointed. How much time and energy was wasted on playing internet forensic accountant based on a thinly sourced "instagram meme", and how could that energy and time be better spent working local conservation issues. I'd much rather do stream bank improvements, outreach, advocacy, and generally putting the work in to make things better for all, rather than get all chapped over BHA (or RMEF, TU, DU, PF, etc). If you don't like BHA, fine, don't join; instead join another conservation group, and put the work in instead of complaining about what the other guy is doing.

Orrrrrrrr, if an org publishes a MISSION STATEMENT, they could just DO WHAT THEY SAY THEY WILL DO.


Otherwise OUR monies just get pissed away on someone's pet projects or carrying favors on DC.

 

[BWALKER77]

I think my money is better spent with RMEF and MDF.
I always viewed BHA as a bunch of radical leftist, flat brim hat bros wearing girls pants and drinking IPA's that taste like shidt.
It's a shame because on certain issues I am of the same oppinion. However the renewables on public land was the last straw. This was a blatant example of supporting their leftist ideology over the sportsmans best interest.

 

[Sytes]

Sytes, is that you?