You act as if you can really understand all the nuances of their finances based on that ledger above, and you can't. My guess is (based on my experience with grants) that those were matching grants and they solicited corporate donations to leverage their membership's money to qualify for the most grant funding possible. This is extremely common and if you don't do it you aren't very good at fundraising and grant management and if you keep it up your board of directors will find someone else who is.
You want to see some kind of "dark art" or nefarious intent here and that is obvious. Maybe dig into what those dollars were actually spent on (conservation?) instead of lobbing accusations. This smells like a case of "I don't like them because they are progressive and successful..." which is typical of the right-wing these days, regardless of whether their success is actually making a difference in the conservation world.
If BHA's practices or political leanings offend you, then there is an easy solution. Just don't join. Simple really. Or you can whine about them here and lob accusations that you can't back up and let everyone draw their own conclusions.
I'm not a member of BHA by the way. But they are clearly filling a niche in the outdoors/conservation/hunting and angling world that needed to be filled based on how successful they have been in such a short time. Don't hate them because you didn't think of it first.
First let me separate my dislike for BHA from the back and forth discussion you and I had/are having. I understand that you are not their spokes person or accountant. I was under the impression you were a member and I was seeking your opinion. I appreciate your response. As far as disliking them because they are successful or thought of it first is not the case, I assure you. There are any number of organizations that can be said about. They are a lobbying group and in general I am inclined to not like lobbying groups until they can prove otherwise and I am not sure there is 1 out there that I am fond of. Please do not feel like I am attacking you with my response. I am not. I am explaining my dislike of what BHA has done.
I do agree with you on 2 things in your last couple posts:
1. I agree the passage of the BIL and IRA being a windfall for grant money flowing into BHA coffers. So its not as simple as not joining BHA imo. As a "conservation" lobbying group, they are getting my tax dollars through publicly funded grants.
2. I agree conservation of small species are as important to consider as the large "money makers". You rightly point out the legacy of conservation left to us by people like Leopold. But I am old enough to remember when the statue of Teddy Roosevelt was removed from in front of the NY Museum of Natural History. Not only did BHA and their members not speak out about it and fight for it to remain , no, BHA endorsed the ideological movement that was doing the removal. That same ideological movement has and will continue to push for Leopold and Roosevelt to be categorized and demonized as racist colonizers. Now ironically, the same ideological movement that BHA endorsed when that statue was removed is coming for the North American Model of Conservation starting with WA, then CO and Oregon, and then other states.
to the broader point.
As far as conservation goes, BHA is only interested in conservation and public access when it is on the terms of their political allies. Its plain for everyone to see. BHA is in the business of funneling tax dollars into their own pockets in the form of grants. Whether that ends up helping public lands is simply a biproduct of me as a public land owner having mutual interests as BHA political buddies. The influx of grants after lobbying for the IRA and BIL is a prime example. As far as evidence, maybe the granting agencies should be made public instead of remaining confidential on BHA's 990.
Our current Secretary of the Interior, which BHA is absolutely in LOVE with has taken away more hunting opportunity from you just in Alaska than all anti-hunting groups have in all the lower 48 combined over the last two years. And there's no sign of it slowing down.
Its the lower 48 also. The Biden Administration has committed 20 million acres of my public land to go under long term renewable development. I will never get to hunt or enjoy that land because it will be commercialized for energy development for multi generations. Combined with the 26 million or whatever it is in AK that william schmaltz referenced, thats almost 50 million acres (and counting) of public land out of reach for hunters under the administration that Land Tawney and BHA wanted. BHA cant even find the time to write a single press release condemning any of it. Maybe they forgot to budget some of that BIL and IRA grant money for those press releases. Or maybe they are just embarrassed since BHA and specifically Land Tawney endorsed renewables on public land in 2019. I thought they were committed to fighting for public land owners. I must have read 2 dozen press releases from BHA about how bad energy development of public land was under the Trump administration.
Here is another plain as day example, I must have read a half dozen BHA press releases about how bad it was that Trump was going allow drilling the Arctic refuge. Then Biden green lit drilling in the refuge, not a single article condemning the Biden Admin's decision to open it. And we have not even touched on the record setting acreage offshore and all those dead wright whales around the wind mills there.
Signed
-Public Land Owner