BHA Funding

[Wrong Burgundy]

In reference to the original post that makes a claim for "unredacted financial statements," most people don't know enough about financial statements and tax returns to know what they are asking for or what claims they make with their comments.

There is a big difference between a financial statement and a Form 990 that people download and try to glean information from. A Financial Statement, issued under General Accepted Accounting Principles, would never show donor details or information about donors. That is not what a financial statement is designed to provide. If audited, which I suspect BHA has audited financials, they will be fully transparent financial statements. If not, the auditor cannot express an opinion about such financial statements. Yet, such financial statements with a clean auditors' opinion will contain no information about donors and I doubt that such clean auditors' opinion would satisfy those wanting to know all the details of donors.

As for "redacted" financial statements that are being referred to in those screen shots, those are pages downloaded from the IRS website from Form 990. When looking at IRS Form 990, some donor information is not subject to public disclosure, by law (Congressional directive). The Congress/IRS requires those redactions, not the charity filing the Form 990. No matter what charity you download Form 990 for, you will find these redactions.

If someone is looking for a special report showing complete detail of every donor, that is not a financial statement. That would require a special report resulting from an "Agreed Upon Procedures Engagement" by outside auditors, something that no organization in the non-profit world would ever provide, and to my knowledge, has never been provided by a non-profit. For many reasons. First, and probably most important ,is donor confidentiality. Donors, whether foundations or individuals, do not want their personal donations made public. You never see this from anti-public land groups, pro-public land groups, your local church, your pro-gun groups, anti-gun groups, not from any groups. You don't see it for a reason and you likely never will, from any organization, including BHA.

It will come down to whether or not this topic is such a big deal for BHA that they lose members or donors. That is a balance they have to walk.

Anyone claiming the failure of a non-profit to voluntarily disclose their donor list (and be the first non-profit in history that I am aware of) is somehow proof of fishy business with a non-profit, seems to stem from either a lack of understanding of the legal issues surrounding such donor disclosures or might stem from the desire to confirm other disagreement with said charity.

I think we can safely say that Randy has outlined in great detail the "how, why, when" very objectively.....and as Ben Long stated, if you don't like it, support something else.

 

[nontyp]

Serious question... Like what? I've been trying to figure it out but haven't been able to, and until recently I was on the Board for my state. And I still couldn't figure out what the organization did. Some of the members organized symposiums and a few public land projects but the support (financial and otherwise) was very minimal. The Chapter volunteers did everything, and other than offering a Twitter account and mailing list, I really couldn't see the point for National or even the collection of dues.

I lobbied the entire time for audited financials, as I expect from any group that asks for my time and money, and when I was rebuffed long enough I gave it up and went elsewhere. Maybe some Chapters have more tangible benefits than others? I'm just wondering that they are.

So I think a lot of attention gets focused on BHA at a National level, but in reality 99% of the work that gets done is at the state and local level. State chapters operate somewhat on their own using the guiding principles of BHA with some oversight. Full disclosure, I am on the Kansas board. Here are some specific things we do.

-currently working to secure public access on a 9,000 acre piece of private property. this should be completed in the next 12 months.
-Have held private meetings with the secretary of KDWPT and all the public land directors in Kansas. Lot’s of great things came from this. For example we are working with the public land directors in each region on lists of service projects that fit our mission. We will then roll these projects out individually to the public.
-We attend the commission meetings and make our voice heard on pertinent topics. With the backing of our membership the commission and attendees listen when we speak. Individually speaking out at meetings like this probably wouldn’t carry the same weight.
-Are working with a veterans group and youth mentor group to mentor new and/or disabled hunters
-Have met with the director of WIHA (walk in hunting program) and are working with them to improve and add more acres for public hunting access

We have only been an official chapter since May so a lot of things are works in progress at the moment, but I can assure everyone that we have a great group of guys and we are putting a lot of time and effort into improving access and opportunity in Kansas.

 

[88man]

Legality aside, when 4 donors contribute 3x more than the entirety of all membership dues, and membership dues alone will barely cover 50% of the charities payroll, it seems totally legitimate to me to have an interest in who those 4 donors are.

RED FLAG!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I think we can safely say that Randy has outlined in great detail the "how, why, when" very objectively.....and as Ben Long stated, if you don't like it, support something else.

I would agree in regards to financial statements.

My main topic of concern is not so much what they should/shouldn't release in financial statements but the implication that 60% of their funding comes from anti-hunting foundations.

If the response to folks who want to understand why their hunting advocacy organization of choice is primarily funded by anti-hunting foundations is "go somewhere else if you don't like it", good luck disputing the green decoy smear campaigns.

It seems as much of the good work is done by local chapters without a high level of support from National. I'm curious what impacts there would be to these volunteers work if it were to happen without being under the umbrella of a BHA chapter?

 

[Big Fin]

Legality aside, when 4 donors contribute 3x more than the entirety of all membership dues, and membership dues alone will barely cover 50% of the charities payroll, it seems totally legitimate to me to have an interest in who those 4 donors are.

I agree that people will be interested. The same as they should be interested in donors of other organizations they support. Will the work and positions of said organization be influenced by the donor(s) of concern?

My point is, interested in donor names, or not, donor information will never be disclosed, not by BHA, not by NRA, not by ABC, and not by XYZ. And as a result, folks must make decisions about their support or opposition to any non-profit based on the actions and accomplishments of the non-profit, not by the disclosure of the donors.

 

[npaden]

Legality aside, when 4 donors contribute 3x more than the entirety of all membership dues, and membership dues alone will barely cover 50% of the charities payroll, it seems totally legitimate to me to have an interest in who those 4 donors are.

I'm not sure where you are getting that information because that doesn't match up with their 990 filings at all. The latest 990 available online right now is 2017 but it shows an 87.7% "Public Support Percentage" for 2017. If these ant-hunting foundations were contributing significant dollars they would have to show that on the 990 for any amounts that exceed 2% of revenue from an individual or a private foundation.

Over the 5 year period from 2013 - 2017 their "non public" support was 12.2%. There isn't any required disclosure to list the number of individuals or foundations that make that 12.2% up, so no idea where you would get that there were 4 of them.

As far as where the money goes, according to their 990 a huge chunk goes towards advertising and promotion. $1.6 million in 2017 out of total expenses of $3.9 million.

 

[npaden]

I just don't understand the need for all the made up numbers that get posted online anymore. It seems that if you want to make a point, just pull some numbers out of thin air and put them in a meme and share it.

Numbers can and do tell some great stories, no need to make them up or exaggerate them. When you make stuff up it just weakens whatever argument you are trying to make.

We live in a day and age where you can actually go get factual information easier than ever in just minutes. It is easy to check things one way or the other.

As BigFin said, an actual list of donor names isn't going to be out there anywhere, but for the most part the rest of the information is.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

So I think a lot of attention gets focused on BHA at a National level, but in reality 99% of the work that gets done is at the state and local level. State chapters operate somewhat on their own using the guiding principles of BHA with some oversight. Full disclosure, I am on the Kansas board. Here are some specific things we do.

-currently working to secure public access on a 9,000 acre piece of private property. this should be completed in the next 12 months.
-Have held private meetings with the secretary of KDWPT and all the public land directors in Kansas. Lot’s of great things came from this. For example we are working with the public land directors in each region on lists of service projects that fit our mission. We will then roll these projects out individually to the public.
-We attend the commission meetings and make our voice heard on pertinent topics. With the backing of our membership the commission and attendees listen when we speak. Individually speaking out at meetings like this probably wouldn’t carry the same weight.
-Are working with a veterans group and youth mentor group to mentor new and/or disabled hunters
-Have met with the director of WIHA (walk in hunting program) and are working with them to improve and add more acres for public hunting access

We have only been an official chapter since May so a lot of things are works in progress at the moment, but I can assure everyone that we have a great group of guys and we are putting a lot of time and effort into improving access and opportunity in Kansas.

What benefits do the National level provide to your chapter?

 

[nontyp]

I'm not sure where you are getting that information because that doesn't match up with their 990 filings at all. The latest 990 available online right now is 2017 but it shows an 87.7% "Public Support Percentage" for 2017. If these ant-hunting foundations were contributing significant dollars they would have to show that on the 990 for any amounts that exceed 2% of revenue from an individual or a private foundation.

Over the 5 year period from 2013 - 2017 their "non public" support was 12.2%. There isn't any required disclosure to list the number of individuals or foundations that make that 12.2% up, so no idea where you would get that there were 4 of them.

As far as where the money goes, according to their 990 a huge chunk goes towards advertising and promotion. $1.6 million in 2017 out of total expenses of $3.9 million.

I think people see the advertising and promotion budget and wonder why it is such a large part of spending. Even on a chapter level I would say the bulk of our money is spent in that way. We use the money for events to build membership and we leverage our members to get real stuff done as I have noted above. Most of the work we do doesn’t involve BHAs money. We are leveraging state and federal funds to create new public access.

 

[Big Fin]

I just don't understand the need for all the made up numbers that get posted online anymore. It seems that if you want to make a point, just pull some numbers out of thin air and put them in a meme and share it.

Numbers can and do tell some great stories, no need to make them up or exaggerate them. When you make stuff up it just weakens whatever argument you are trying to make.

We live in a day and age where you can actually go get factual information easier than ever in just minutes. It is easy to check things one way or the other.

As BigFin said, an actual list of donor names isn't going to be out there anywhere, but for the most part the rest of the information is.

I'm not sure where you are getting that information because that doesn't match up with their 990 filings at all. The latest 990 available online right now is 2017 but it shows an 87.7% "Public Support Percentage" for 2017. If these ant-hunting foundations were contributing significant dollars they would have to show that on the 990 for any amounts that exceed 2% of revenue from an individual or a private foundation.

Over the 5 year period from 2013 - 2017 their "non public" support was 12.2%. There isn't any required disclosure to list the number of individuals or foundations that make that 12.2% up, so no idea where you would get that there were 4 of them.

As far as where the money goes, according to their 990 a huge chunk goes towards advertising and promotion. $1.6 million in 2017 out of total expenses of $3.9 million.

Npaden is also a "bean counter" like me. He knows the financial statement side of things way better than I ever will. His comments are dead on, though I suspect that information is not something of importance to the folks whose FB/IG comments were copied/pasted in the original post of this thread.

I appreciate and expect accountability of all non-profits. Knowing the facts, such as Nathan laid out, is far more helpful in accumulating the information needed for good decisions than is the unfactual statements made by non-professionals (often with a personal agenda) that are shown in the screen shots the original poster used when asking what are expected questions about a non-profit.

 

[Drake4]

Although some of their "memes" look pretty funny....if you are getting your Non Profit Organization funding information from a Making.Hunting.Great.Again Instagram page.....I really don't know to say.
Carry on...

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Although some of their "memes" look pretty funny....if you are getting your Non Profit Organization funding information from a Making.Hunting.Great.Again Instagram page.....I really don't know to say.
Carry on...

I wouldn't take anything from MHGA seriously. However, the source of the post and many comments following come from a former BHA national board member. It's all a lot to unpack which is why I came to the trusted HuntTalk contributors.

 

[nontyp]

What benefits do the National level provide to your chapter?

-Access to corporate sponsors, for example if we wanted to raffle a Weatherby rifle and/or a Yeti cooler off we could get them at a greatly reduced price or free.
-access to digital tools that are paid for by National
-Access to our chapter coordinator who is a salaried employee of BHA.
-startup funding and resources for new chapters
-coordination with other state chapter leaders on best practices
-Nationwide advocacy on state specific issues as needed

 

[npaden]

Npaden is also a "bean counter" like me. He knows the financial statement side of things way better than I ever will. His comments are dead on, though I suspect that information is not something of importance to the folks whose FB/IG comments were copied/pasted in the original post of this thread.

I appreciate and expect accountability of all non-profits. Knowing the facts, such as Nathan laid out, is far more helpful in accumulating the information needed for good decisions than is the unfactual statements made by non-professionals (often with a personal agenda) that are shown in the screen shots the original poster used when asking what are expected questions about a non-profit.

P.S. - I went ahead and looked up the anti-hunting foundations noted on the initial post on Charity Navigator and sure enough, they were listed as Private Foundations (i.e. - they don't receive the majority of their funding from the public). So BHA would be required to list any contributions from them that exceeded 2% of their revenue on the Public Charity Status Part II form.

If they received large grants or contributions from organizations that were considered to be publicly supported they would not have to show them separately on that form. So for instance if they got a large grant from TRCP or Trout Unlimited, those are already considered to be public charities so they would go under the public support row on the 990 for BHA.

All this to say that it seems that the facts don't match up well with the accusations in the first post. Unless they are saying that BHA didn't file their 990 correctly.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I just don't understand the need for all the made up numbers that get posted online anymore. It seems that if you want to make a point, just pull some numbers out of thin air and put them in a meme and share it.

83% of statistics are made up at the time of usage (I was going to say 83.5385% but that seemed artificially precise)

 

[Drake4]

All this to say that it seems that the facts don't match up well with the accusations in the first post. Unless they are saying that BHA didn't file their 990 correctly.

Really??? I am super surprised..what with groundbreaking news like this and all....

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am a paid up member of BHA, but if I am honest I waffle at times. Unlike RMEF or PheasantsForever where I have a big smile on my face as I write the next dues check, when I write the BHA check it is with a bit of a grimace. I will not guess at any of the numbers, speculation or allegations being thrown around this (and similar) thread(s), but having been actively involved in the political arena for many decades I do have pause when I see an organization that needs to build a big tent led by so clearly a partisan figure head. But for now, I accept at face value some of the positives of this organization and continue to belong. But if they really are taking big money from the antis, the bill will come due some day, and then I will leave (knowing that neither my presence or absence meant beans to anybody involved).

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I'm not sure where you are getting that information because that doesn't match up with their 990 filings at all. The latest 990 available online right now is 2017 but it shows an 87.7% "Public Support Percentage" for 2017. If these ant-hunting foundations were contributing significant dollars they would have to show that on the 990 for any amounts that exceed 2% of revenue from an individual or a private foundation.

Over the 5 year period from 2013 - 2017 their "non public" support was 12.2%. There isn't any required disclosure to list the number of individuals or foundations that make that 12.2% up, so no idea where you would get that there were 4 of them.

As far as where the money goes, according to their 990 a huge chunk goes towards advertising and promotion. $1.6 million in 2017 out of total expenses of $3.9 million.

I got my information from BHA website.

2017 990 Form

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/backcountryhunters/pages/5229/attachments/original/1539988551/2017-12-31_990_BH_A_-_PUBLIC_%281%29.pdf?1539988551

Membership and Dues = $693K
Salaries, Comp and benefits =$1.165M
Contributors on Sch B page 2

2018 990 Form

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/backcountryhunters/pages/5229/attachments/original/1575307195/2018-12-31_990_BH_A_-_PUBLIC.pdf?1575307195

Membership and Dues = $983K
Salaries, Comp and benefits = $1.950M
Contributors on Sch B page 2

If i have stated something factually incorrect please let me know as that was not my intention. I have not stated anywhere that i have a concern about them being supported by anti-hunting organizations. I actually think the green decoy thoughts are foolish and unproductive. It is entirely possible that these donors are simply individuals. I don't know as that information is redacted on these forms.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I just don't understand the need for all the made up numbers that get posted online anymore. It seems that if you want to make a point, just pull some numbers out of thin air and put them in a meme and share it.

Numbers can and do tell some great stories, no need to make them up or exaggerate them. When you make stuff up it just weakens whatever argument you are trying to make.

We live in a day and age where you can actually go get factual information easier than ever in just minutes. It is easy to check things one way or the other.

As BigFin said, an actual list of donor names isn't going to be out there anywhere, but for the most part the rest of the information is.

Like i said, i got my info from the 990's on their website. If i am misrepresenting or just flat out wrong, please let me know. I have made up nothing. I simply read the 990 form and did the math from there. Perhaps I need to brush up on my GAAP rules.

 

[npaden]

I am wasting too much time on this, but I went ahead and pulled up the 990 for "Fund for a Better Future" which was listed in the initial post and they are required to list out their Grants that they gave out and BHA was not on the list.

Western Conservation Foundation was another that was mentioned and I pulled up their 990 and BHA was on that list. BHA received $1,390,180 from Western Conservation Foundation in 2017. They had almost 40 pages of Grants and Other Assistance listed out, I didn't look at every one of them but seemed like that were all for some type of conservation group or something. Western Conservation Foundation is classified as a Public Foundation because they receive a substantial part of their support from the general public so BHA correctly would have classified that money as public support on their 990. Western Conservation Foundation does get a lot of soft money, their Public Support % is only 41.9% for 2017 so they get a lot of big $ from some folks or private foundations. But they also get a lot of $ from the general public as well.

Western Conservation Foundation gets a 2 out of 4 star rating on Charity Navigator with an overall score of 76 out of 100. Not great, but not terrible. 3 stars and 80+ is generally a good rating. Not sure anyone would be able to call them anti-hunting but I didn't really do much research on them. It doesn't seem like they are a back channel funnel to BHA though because BHA's 1.4 million grant in 2017 was only 18% of the total grants they gave out that year. The stated purpose of the Western Conservation Foundation is to increase the political power of the western conservation movement so giving money to BHA seems to fit into that purpose.

I still haven't found any smoking guns.