BHA Funding

[Wind Gypsy]

I know, I know.. not again..

Ive been a BHA supporter who has been OK with the variety of backgrounds and beliefs within the organization because I felt everyone was largely aligned on the mission. That said, the recent details posted on funding were a bit alarming.

Also of interest was discussion of BHA support in making the bighorn area in alberta a provincial park. It’s my understanding that hunting and fishing is prohibited in provincial parks.

I’ll need to do my own investigating but based on Land’s Instagram responses to questions from the below post, I have very few warm and fuzzies left for BHA as an organization (that’s not to discount the good work done by many within the organization).

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Land responded to the below post in relation to supporting republicans but not about the Y2Y.

 

[hossblur]

I know, I know.. not again..

Ive been a BHA supporter who has been OK with the variety of backgrounds and beliefs within the organization because I felt everyone was largely aligned on the mission. That said, the recent details posted on funding were a bit alarming.

Also of interest was discussion of BHA support in making the bighorn area in alberta a provincial park. It’s my understanding that hunting and fishing is prohibited in provincial parks.

I’ll need to do my own investigating but based on Land’s Instagram responses to questions from the below post, I have very few warm and fuzzies left for BHA as an organization (that’s not to discount the good work done by many within the organization).

View attachment 124016

"Liked" by johnbairauctioneer.

Believe that's John Bair. The auctioneer for $FW.

How priceless that anyone associated with $fw would question financials of any other org. I wonder if $fw would like to answer the same question that their auctioneer "Liked".

Now back to the OP, I just found this "humorous"

 

[nontyp]

You said Land’s response is in the photo? I do not see that. I would just recommend doing your own research and contact the organization with concerns. lots of false and misleading info in this post and the comments that follow it.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

You said Land’s response is in the photo? I do not see that. I would just recommend doing your own research and contact the organization with concerns. lots of false and misleading info in this post and the comments that follow it.

sorry, that was very poorly worded. I edited that post.

 

[tjones]

I know, I know.. not again..

Ive been a BHA supporter who has been OK with the variety of backgrounds and beliefs within the organization because I felt everyone was largely aligned on the mission. That said, the recent details posted on funding were a bit alarming.

Also of interest was discussion of BHA support in making the bighorn area in alberta a provincial park. It’s my understanding that hunting and fishing is prohibited in provincial parks.

I’ll need to do my own investigating but based on Land’s Instagram responses to questions from the below post, I have very few warm and fuzzies left for BHA as an organization (that’s not to discount the good work done by many within the organization).

View attachment 124016

Sytes, is that you?

 

[Carnage2011]

"Liked" by johnbairauctioneer.

Believe that's John Bair. The auctioneer for $FW.

How priceless that anyone associated with $fw would question financials of any other org. I wonder if $fw would like to answer the same question that their auctioneer "Liked".

Now back to the OP, I just found this "humorous"

One of the best auctioneers in the world and he does a lot more than the ones for SFW. WSF doesn’t seem to have a problem with him.

 

[Ben Long]

If you don't like BHA, don't support 'em. There's plenty of groups I like and I support. Others I opt not to. There's a spectrum. But it's silly and paranoid to play this guilt-by-association game.

 

[hossblur]

One of the best auctioneers in the world and he does a lot more than the ones for SFW. WSF doesn’t seem to have a problem with him.

Of course $fw likes him. They LOVE the money. They just HATE to answer where it goes.

Exactly the same as the OP.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Sytes, is that you?

I apologize if this has already been covered. I have been aware of alliances with non-consumptive users who might not be fans of predator hunting. If those alliances are just a piece of the pie and contribute to the common goal of BHA's mission I can understand. What is new to me is trying to wrap my head around the MAJORITY of BHA funding coming from Hewlett, Wyss, and Wilburforce who spend millions into the sierra club, wilderness society, Defenders of Wildlife, BornFreeUSA, and other anti-hunting organizations. Are we to believe these anti-hunting foundations are naive enough to be the primary financial backers of an organization staying true to it's mission "seeks to ensure North America's outdoor heritage of hunting and fishing in a natural setting."

There are a lot of folks on this site that have skin in the game in relation to these issues, I'm looking for insight as I can't make sense of it.

 

[MTGomer]

It is a fact that Land Tawney, Ryan Busse, and others are left, hyper partisan democrats.
It is also a fact that BHA is doing some damn good work that nobody else seems to want to touch.
For the latter, I’m a member.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

If you don't like BHA, don't support 'em. There's plenty of groups I like and I support. Others I opt not to. There's a spectrum. But it's silly and paranoid to play this guilt-by-association game.

Ben, I have always "liked" BHA and been proud to be a member. I'm sure i'm not alone in being surprised by who's funding them and feeling a little duped after denoucing the Green Decoy propaganda that is gaining shreds of credibility.

 

[MTGomer]

I wonder if there is there a forum where anti hunters discuss whether or not the groups they belong to are blood-decoys for the hunting industry.
“Did you see that Defenders of Wildlife took money from the same group that donated to BHA. Yes that BHA, the one who’s Idaho chapter guy and large donor cut down a family of baby baboons and posed with their corpses? This is what DOW actually supports ”

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I wonder if there is there a forum where anti hunters discuss whether or not the groups they belong to are blood-decoys for the hunting industry.
“Did you see that Defenders of Wildlife took money from the same group that donated to BHA. Yes that BHA, the one who’s Idaho chapter guy and large donor cut down a family of baby baboons and posed with their corpses? This is what DOW actually supports ”

View attachment 124067

The purity tests are in full force, on all sides.

 

[grizzly_]

It is also a fact that BHA is doing some damn good work that nobody else seems to want to touch.
For the latter, I’m a member.

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.

 

[MTGomer]

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.

Here’s a few examples, and don’t take them to mean that I think they alone are justification for all the money that comes in/out. To be honest, I don’t know a lot about that, and think it is entirely possible there is something fishy, but I don’t know enough to have an opinion on that.
I had some concerns about a travel management plan, and gave the Montana chapter my reasons for the comments I submitted personally. They incorporated it into the BHA comments on that. They are also doing a lot of good work around the Crazy Mountains for access, and are opposed to and working against the shoulder season expansion/ MT war on elk, that seems to be taking elk management toward a Ranching For Wildlife or landowner tag system.
Recently in NM, the commission adopted a wording change to the rules that will actually set the resident tags at 84%, because before there was some fuzzy math going on that was greatly benefitting NR and especially guided/landowner tags. So that is also a fight against privatization/commercialization of the public resource that NM BHA and the NM Wildlife Federation pushes to fix.

Again, none of that is to say that your concerns are not legitimate. They very well may be, and I think that unredacted, fully transparent financials would be a good thing.

 

[88man]

Money comes from the master

 

[Big Fin]

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.

 

[geetar]

If you don't like BHA, don't support 'em. There's plenty of groups I like and I support. Others I opt not to. There's a spectrum. But it's silly and paranoid to play this guilt-by-association game.

Agreed! If you dig too deep you will find details you don’t like about all organizations. Why? Because people are involved and people are imperfect.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

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.

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.