The need for a 501c4?

[brocksw]

I’d like to see a discussion on the need for a 501c4 within the non-profit space for the hunting and angling community. Specifically, one that advocates, lobbies, and spends dollars on behalf of supporters of science based wildlife management, the North American model, and the public trust doctrine.

In other words an organization with a mission that opposes both privatization of our public resources and anti hunting efforts, placing both sides in a similar vein. A vein, which by my estimation, leads to the same result, decreased hunting opportunity and access for the DIY, average joe sportsmen.

Some advantages of a 501c4 being more ability to lobby and the ability to make expenditures to support the mission. Of course, a PAC would allow the ability to directly support politicians, campaigns, etc., and a 501c4 cannot do that, at least not directly via campaign donations and such.

 

[brocksw]

Hold

 

[Bonasababy]

I’d like to see a discussion on the need for a 501c4 within the non-profit space for the hunting and angling community. Specifically, one that advocates, lobbies, and spends dollars on behalf of supporters of science based wildlife management, the North American model, and the public trust doctrine.

In other words an organization with a mission that opposes both privatization of our public resources and anti hunting efforts, placing both sides in a similar vein. A vein, which by my estimation, leads to the same result, decreased hunting opportunity and access for the DIY, average joe sportsmen.

Some advantages of a 501c4 being more ability to lobby and the ability to make expenditures to support the mission. Of course, a PAC would allow the ability to directly support politicians, campaigns, etc., and a 501c4 cannot do that, at least not directly via campaign donations and such.

Laudable goal....but do you think existing orgs aren't doing this already? BHA, TRCP, the Ike's, perhaps others out there?

 

[brocksw]

Laudable goal....but do you think existing orgs aren't doing this already? BHA, TRCP, the Ike's, perhaps others out there?

They lobby, yes. But those are 501c3s. They have limitations on how much they can lobby and they cannot support candidates/campaigns/politicians via direct donations or political expenditures. They can’t endorse candidates.

A 501c4 can make expenditures (indirectly support candidates) and endorse candidates. A PAC can donate directly to campaigns.

 

[marksjeep]

Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management

We focus on the public’s interests for maintaining a century-old track record of our natural resources, including wildlife, habitat, and farms and ranches.

savethehuntcolorado.com

Colorado 501c4 doing the work. More nam focused than public lands.

 

[brocksw]

Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management

We focus on the public’s interests for maintaining a century-old track record of our natural resources, including wildlife, habitat, and farms and ranches.

savethehuntcolorado.com

Colorado 501c4 doing the work. More nam focused than public lands.

usually orgs that are “sportsmen’s alliance” are 501c4s as well.

 

[Treeshark]

the North American model, and the public trust doctrine.

Both of these concepts have been hijacked for all kinds of things lately, I'm not sure that they haven’t outlived their usefulness to some degree (as they relate to sportsman issues anyway).

 

[Bonasababy]

Both of these concepts have been hijacked for all kinds of things lately, I'm not sure that they haven’t outlived their usefulness to some degree (as they relate to sportsman issues anyway).

Their ability to be hijacked depends on people who allow them --or WANT them--to do so.

I will say diving into politics is a bit tricky for an org.

Rather than supporting candidates directly, I like the approach of saying conservation and sporting ideals and desires are not partisan, and holding candidates to that--while publishing or releasing statements on the positions of candidates in relation to those ideals and desires.

When you start getting into direct support is when your statement becomes common belief. We shouldn't tolerate that IMO.

 

[Treeshark]

Their ability to be hijacked depends on people who allow them --or WANT them--to do so.

I agree, but we have blown so far past that by now that I’m not sure what benefit either idea serves anymore.

It is a good bet that anytime you hear the words “Public Trust Doctrine” or “North American Model of Conservarion” from an influencer or forum poster, a self-serving narrative is soon to follow.

They have unfortunately become a really good portender of BS. Any time you read those two words, the radar should go up immediately.

 

[Treeshark]

Rather than supporting candidates directly, I like the approach of saying conservation and sporting ideals and desires are not partisan, and holding candidates to that--while publishing or releasing statements on the positions of candidates in relation to those ideals and desires.

Agreed. Tying directly to political candidates seems likely to immediately turn off a large part of the population on one side or the other.

 

[Bonasababy]

I agree, but we have blown so far past that by now that I’m not sure what benefit either idea serves anymore.

It is a good bet that anytime you hear the words “Public Trust Doctrine” or “North American Model of Conservarion” from an influencer or forum poster, a self-serving narrative is soon to follow.

They have unfortunately become a really good portender of BS. Any time you read those two words, the radar should go up immediately.

Guess I haven't seen that. Most of the folks I know of and the times I see those used have honored their original intent.

There's been a push to remind folks of them as the growth of privatization of wildlife has grown. Given that, the folks I see who most often bristle at the use of them are those that want to privatize wildlife. Could be anything from the belief fish and game laws can be ignored on private land or that private individuals own the game, can sell it at will, that public land should be abolished, and in general resist reasonable restrictions and laws designed to protect the public interest in fish and game.

 

[Treeshark]

Over-application is probably the most common issue I see.

Holding public trust doctrine up as a weapon to secure more opportunity for one’s self/exclude others has become a go-to- whether it really applies (or should apply) or not.

 

[Treeshark]

Anyway- I voted no.

The last thing we need is more groups like BHA out there telling people who to vote for.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Just a few years back my answer would be “no”, we as hunters should completely focus on habitat work, conserving/recovering game species, education and access. However, my experiences in Colorado over the past few years have swayed my opinion significantly. As Center for Biological Diversity, Animal Wellness Action, WildEarth Guardians and a plethora of national anti-hunting orgs have set up shop in Colorado and begun to flex their political muscle, we can’t ignore this existential threat to the future of hunting and the North American Model. CRWM is doing some great work at the state level here in Colorado.

 

[MNElkNut]

Absolutely. I have been thinking about this a bit lately. I think a group that could put forth a compelling narrative to the nonhunting public would be fantastic. We will win or lose based on the nonhunting public, the middle 80%, and we need to get our message out there. Charismatic spokesman giving the narrative would also be huge. The other side is doing it, we need to as well.

 

[brocksw]

Rather than supporting candidates directly, I like the approach of saying conservation and sporting ideals and desires are not partisan, and holding candidates to that--while publishing or releasing statements on the positions of candidates in relation to those ideals and desires.

When you start getting into direct support is when your statement becomes common belief. We shouldn't tolerate that IMO.

I think the discussion here is an interesting one. In some sense I agree with you, but that agreement is more in principal. This goes back to citizens united as a central point of contention, and one I don’t like either.

So a more active 501c4 and a PAC represents the idea that to beat them(animal rights and privatization movements) at their game, we have to at least play the same game. Since we know money talks, 501c4s and PACs are more equipped to participate in that monetary game where groups like the Humane Society and the Farm Bureau are playing. Both are antithetical to public hunting opportunity and the North American model.

That is the problem, those groups are utilizing 501c4s and PACs to advocate for things they want, through various funding/spending mechanisms and it is proving to be more effective to some degree. 501c3s are hamstrung in that sense and the only tool they have is their ideals and values.

We can not like the way the game is played(I know I don’t), but nonetheless, that is the game.

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/industry-detail/A6500/2022

PAC Profile: Humane Society Legislative Fund

Humane Society Legislative Fund raised $448,061 in the 2021-2022 election cycle. See the details.

www.opensecrets.org

 

[David Gough]

Nevada's version: https://coalitionfornevadaswildlife.org/

Directors of local 501(c)(3) organizations make up the board.