Conservation Organization

[tdhanses]

What other org that may attract support from us rod & gun folks flies in the face of corporate land grabbers?

RMEF has done way more for opening up public land and access but also has a much longer history.

 

[ODB]

Most .orgs are inverted pyramids. Dump a lot of money in the top and pennies dribble out of the bottom for the actual “cause.’

Again, to quote Hoffer: All movements begin as a cause, become a business, and eventually degenerate into a racket.

Might sound cynical, but it’s largely true across the board.

Give money as close to the issue as possible. There is no need to fatten peoples wallets to generate posts or emails.

 

[BuzzH]

(cont)

6. Worked with the GF commission to address the issues surrounding the problems with the early NR elk draw. That was causing all sorts of issues with license allocation percentages and not allowing NR hunters to apply for any new hunts that were approved in April, meaning NR's were getting ripped out of great new hunts with 100% of those tags going to Residents.

7. Changed regulation to make type 4-5 cow/calf tags available as additional licenses.

8. Have worked to stop a lot of bad legislation over the years, including some this session.

9. Received a commission license and donated every single penny ($47,000) to fund the Raymond Mountain Access which provides a West side access to the Raymond Mountain WSA.

10. Working on another bad land exchange right now near Sheridan WY that would deny access to quality hunting and fishing.

11. Deeply involved in the Wyoming Corner Crossing case and fund raising for that as well.

12. Provide written comments on all sorts of public land, wildlife, and access related issues...too many to list.

 

[tdhanses]

I looked into this several months ago. I was going to make a big commitment to one and trying to decide on one. Ultimately I decided on none because I couldn't get past the salary the top end people make in these organizations. You can find this in their 990s that should be available online. I know they do a lot of good, I personally just would like to see less taken away for top end folks. This isn't just for conservation organizations. I can also see where some folks aren't bothered by this.

If you look at RMEF, it is a large org and for certain roles they’ll pay well to attractive great people. You can’t have the bottom feeders running everything because they’ll do it for much less. RMEF uses 90%+ of funds for it’s mission.

 

[Hoodie]

To just dismiss it is biased as well, just too much unknown to make me continue supporting them, I think we all need to find an org to support, for some it’ll be BHA.

I think it's acceptable to point out over the top bias. Particularly for fact checkers.

The entire point of fact checkers is to point out bias.

 

[tdhanses]

I think it's acceptable to point out over the top bias. Particularly for fact checkers.

The entire point of fact checkers is to point out bias.

I didn’t say what I posted was fact, I don’t believe most of what I find using google but it does make one question the org, like I said what other org has so many detractors? That alone is a red flag.

Personally I think if BHA fired all of it’s leadership and replaced them then some of the sketchy type concerns would go away. Put in a moderate leadership, not far left or far right politically or find a way to bring in leadership that has a neutral political standing historically, a shakeup would do them well with public perception.

 

[Wyobohunter]

(cont)

6. Worked with the GF commission to address the issues surrounding the problems with the early NR elk draw. That was causing all sorts of issues with license allocation percentages and not allowing NR hunters to apply for any new hunts that were approved in April, meaning NR's were getting ripped out of great new hunts with 100% of those tags going to Residents.

7. Changed regulation to make type 4-5 cow/calf tags available as additional licenses.

8. Have worked to stop a lot of bad legislation over the years, including some this session.

9. Received a commission license and donated every single penny ($47,000) to fund the Raymond Mountain Access which provides a West side access to the Raymond Mountain WSA.

10. Working on another bad land exchange right now near Sheridan WY that would deny access to quality hunting and fishing.

11. Deeply involved in the Wyoming Corner Crossing case and fund raising for that as well.

12. Provide written comments on all sorts of public land, wildlife, and access related issues...too many to list.

I like most of that. For purely selfish reasons I’d rather see it more expensive and more difficult for NR hunters to come here. I’d gladly set that aside in support of the rest of it.

 

[bowhuntrben]

That’s not an impressive amount of money. I don’t mind if a person at the top end of an organization I support makes a living salary. Matter of fact, I prefer they do. If a person is paid decently he/she may just do a better job.

A lot of them are well well north of $100k. I'm definitely in favor of them making a living as well...even a real nice living...just not so crazy as some of them. A lot of the organizations that aren't conservation organizations were even more off-putting to me after looking at their 990s.

 

[Wyobohunter]

A lot of them are well well north of $100k. I'm definitely in favor of them making a living as well...even a real nice living...just not so crazy as some of them. A lot of the organizations that aren't conservation organizations were even more off-putting to me after looking at their 990s.

And wardrobes… too soon?

 

[Hoodie]

I didn’t say what I posted was fact, I don’t believe most of what I find using google but it does make one question the org, like I said what other org has so many detractors? That alone is a red flag.

I got involved with this thread because a guy asked why people are so suspicious of BHA.

This is what I said:

"This is the primary reason. 16 percent of the members are Democrats and 32 percent are independents. Given the trend towards hyper-partisanship here lately, people on both ends of the spectrum are likely to lump independents in with whatever party they happen to dislike.

This means that 48% at minimum do not identify as Republican, and maybe as much as 58%-75% (depending on how many of the 10% that preferred not to respond/"none of the above" are closet liberals/Independents).

Most western hunters are Republicans. So they prefer conservation organizations with membership that is predominately Republican."

That's the whole thing. Period. The detractors are conservatives (which is fine), and they are suspicious of the organization because it has members who aren't conservatives, or who aren't as conservative as them. The problem is they don't say that because it would sound capricious and arbitrary. Instead they make things up like "BHA is anti-predator hunting" or "one year BHA liquidated all their assets, cleaned out their accounts, and gave it all to some US Senator (whose name I can't recall)."

It would be totally fine if people were like "The organization is too politically diverse for my tastes." Cool. Nothing wrong with wanting to be a member of an organization where most everybody shares all your opinions. Contribute to other organizations. Or don't. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[tdhanses]

A lot of them are well well north of $100k. I'm definitely in favor of them making a living as well...even a real nice living...just not so crazy as some of them. A lot of the organizations that aren't conservation organizations were even more off-putting to me after looking at their 990s.

I think like others have said, at some point these are just companies, the leadership is there to make as much as they can while directing the mission. These are volunteers and many probably wouldn’t do the job without the financial incentive. But the key is, are they following the mission and expandin/growing their cause to make a difference.

I rather they make more and double what their cause can do then make less and do much much less as an org because they aren’t necessarily there for their passion.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Will usually do life member and be done with the organization. RMEF, WSF, ADBSS, and SCI.

Will participate in state-related raffles (AZ) and the AZ chapter of SCI gets some of my money each year.

 

[tdhanses]

I got involved with this thread because a guy asked why people are so suspicious of BHA.

This is what I said:

"This is the primary reason. 16 percent of the members are Democrats and 32 percent are independents. Given the trend towards hyper-partisanship here lately, people on both ends of the spectrum are likely to lump independents in with whatever party they happen to dislike.

This means that 48% at minimum do not identify as Republican, and maybe as much as 58%-75% (depending on how many of the 10% that preferred not to respond/"none of the above" are closet liberals/Independents).

Most western hunters are Republicans. So they prefer conservation organizations with membership that is predominately Republican."

That's the whole thing. Period. The detractors are conservatives (which is fine), and they are suspicious of the organization because it has members who aren't conservatives, or who aren't as conservative as them. The problem is they don't say that because it would sound capricious and arbitrary. Instead they make things up like "BHA is anti-predator hunting" or "one year BHA liquidated all their assets, cleaned out their accounts, and gave it all to some US Senator (whose name I can't recall)."

It would be totally fine if people were like "The organization is too politically diverse for my tastes." Cool. Nothing wrong with wanting to be a member of an organization where everybody thinks like you. Contribute to other organizations. Or don't. Whatever floats your boat.

I was talking about leadership though, not members. BHA is a small org with a few members compared to most orgs. If it cleaned up some of it’s public perception it would grow much faster and retain more members long-term. Now I’m not saying they have a huge member turn-over, no clue on that, I just know I haven’t given them a dime since around 2014 because I just trust RMEF more with my funds.

I would think there would be less emotion when discussing BHA if it didn’t have such a questionable history for some. You never really see discussion on other orgs get so heated as you do a BHA thread. Just makes one wonder, especially with other orgs like RMEF and SCI out there.

So yes I did what floats my boat and stopped supporting BHA

 

[tdhanses]

Will usually do life member and be done with the organization. RMEF, WSF, ADBSS, and SCI.

Will participate in state-related raffles (AZ) and the AZ chapter of SCI gets some of my money each year.

SCI is another great org.

 

[Hoodie]

Personally I think if BHA fired all of it’s leadership and replaced them then some of the sketchy type concerns would go away.

You're basically saying "If BHA got rid of the Democrats and replaced them with Republicans people wouldn't find them sketchy."

We are in total agreement here.

 

[tdhanses]

You're basically saying "If BHA got rid of the Democrats and replaced them with Republicans people wouldn't find them sketchy."

We are in total agreement here. People find BHA sketchy because they don't like that it's politically diverse.

Pretty much, it’s just harmed the org from growing overall, get rid of that and move the mission forward and you would see more people join but really that’s only if the org truly wants to expand and move it’s mission along quicker, if it’s happy where it’s at then no reason to change.

 

[Customweld]

I am a member of Idaho Wildlife Federation. I don't agree with all of their stances, but agree on enough to be a yearly member. I used to be a member of MDF and was in the process of starting a new chapter in Central Idaho, but ended up backing out. Other than that, I just donate my time and try to do a lot of boots on the ground volunteer work for Idaho Fish and Game.

 

[Hoodie]

I would think there would be less emotion when discussing BHA if it didn’t have such a questionable history for some.

The thing is though, when you look at a lot of the claims people make about BHA even a little, they fall apart.

"BHA doesn't support predator management"- Easily, and repeatedly, debunked.
"BHA makes major donations to political campaigns"- Debunked.

I think you're asking the wrong question.

Why is that no one makes easily disproven claims about any other organizations?

Have you noticed the conspicuous absence of the guy who started making claims about BHA that couldn't be backed up?

Why should I take it seriously if someone says something is "questionable" and then can't back it up even a little bit? If their claim falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, what is actually questionable?

 

[tdhanses]

The thing is though, when you look at a lot of the claims people make about BHA even a little, they fall apart.

"BHA doesn't support predator management"- Easily, and repeatedly, debunked.
"BHA makes major donations to political campaigns"- Debunked.

I think you're asking the wrong question.

Why is that no one makes easily disproven claims about any other organizations?

Have you noticed the conspicuous absence of the guy who started making claims about BHA that couldn't be backed up?

Why should I take it seriously if someone says something is "questionable" and then can't back it up even a little bit? If their claim falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, what is actually questionable?

Oh I agree but why are these claims made to start with, maybe that’s the question your not asking yourself and maybe then look at how can the org change it’s image so that it isn’t constantly on the defense by members and that it’s mission is the focus, not always defending it but making it easy to stand up for it as a good quality org worth peoples donations.

I also think there is a diverse political base against BHA as a conservation org.

Maybe I’m wrong but a restructure year could do wonders for the orgs perception if done correctly.

 

[Hoodie]

Maybe I’m wrong but a restructure year could do wonders for the orgs perception if done correctly.

I want people from diverse political perspectives to agree that public lands are important. It is a good thing.

That's what's so stupid about all this. If you like something, you should want as many people as possible to like it. The NRA shouldn't care if it has pro-gun anarcho-communist members. So long as they believe in the 2nd Amendment.

I'd rather people learn to work for a common cause with people with whom they might not agree on literally every single issue, than establish some sort of weird rule that all members of an organization must be ideologically uniform.

That's how you end up in a circle jerk.