BHA Funding

[npaden]

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.

Got it. Either I missed the Schedule B on Charity Navigator where I was pulling my information from or they don't include it. One thing we know is the the $1.39 million came from Western Conservation Alliance. I'm not sure where the others came from but I might try to work on that later. I have to go to a meeting now.

 

[jmveverka]

What benefits do the National level provide to your chapter?

Where BHA can and should have the most influence is in advocating at the state and local level, but at least some of the local chapters receive very little National support/Benefits. We get some giveaways and discounts to aid in fundraising, but that is all just to get us to raise more funds for National. Previously we were keeping 80% of funds locally to support the local chapter - in 2020 that split will change to a 50/50 split between national and local. My hope is that with that increase in revenue to national, maybe we will get more staff support for things like state advocacy.

 

[Schism]

Where BHA can and should have the most influence is in advocating at the state and local level, but at least some of the local chapters receive very little National support/Benefits. We get some giveaways and discounts to aid in fundraising, but that is all just to get us to raise more funds for National. Previously we were keeping 80% of funds locally to support the local chapter - in 2020 that split will change to a 50/50 split between national and local. My hope is that with that increase in revenue to national, maybe we will get more staff support for things like state advocacy.

The 50/50 split is also an attempt to reduce the overall percentage of revenue obtained by BHA from foundations, which would theoretically reduce those foundations’ influence on BHA’s mission, thereby increasing the influence members and chapters have.

 

[Trial153]

All this comes down to tribalism. There is huge contingency of people in this country that honestly believe that they cannot find commonality on an issue with someone of a different political persuasion.

 

[VikingsGuy]

All this comes down to tribalism. There is huge contingency of people in this country that honestly believe that they cannot find commonality on an issue with someone of a different political persuasion.

Sadly, we have gone from disagreeing, to holding one another in contempt. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/02/opinion/sunday/political-polarization.html) We can find middle ground in the case of disagreement, but when we look to others with contempt there is no interest in compromise or understanding. I hope we can overcome, but it doesn't feel very promising at the moment.

 

[grizzly_]

Be careful about taking ratings from groups like Charity Navigator and GuideStar with too much weight...

From Charity Navigator, "The Board of Directors of Charity Navigator and its staff solicit current and deferred gifts from individuals, corporations and foundations to secure the future growth and advance the mission of the organization.

Acceptable gifts are as follows:
1. Cash donations
2. Tangible Personal Property
3. Securities
4. Real Estate
5. Life Insurance Policies
6. Charitable Gift Annuities
7. Charitable Remainder Trusts
8. Charitable Lead Trusts
9. Retirement Plan Beneficiary Designations
10. Bequests
11. Life Insurance Beneficiary Designations"

Source... https://d20umu42aunjpx.cloudfront.net/Financial+Documents/GiftAcceptancePolicy2016.pdf

GuideStar is just as bad... according to their website, it is self-reported and takes 30-45 minutes to complete. I could invent a group out of thin air, enter in some basic information, and have a GoldStar rating within an hour.

Grow Your Online Identity

You have the power to choose what tens of millions of people see about your organization. Take advantage of your free profile and share up-to-date information.

learn.guidestar.org

Grow Your Online Identity

You have the power to choose what tens of millions of people see about your organization. Take advantage of your free profile and share up-to-date information.

learn.guidestar.org

 

[Wind Gypsy]

All this comes down to tribalism. There is huge contingency of people in this country that honestly believe that they cannot find commonality on an issue with someone of a different political persuasion.

This is what I have written off all MHGA BHA hate as previously. With a former board member making accusations that seem plausible, I'm not so quick to do the same this time.

 

[Keeptrying]

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.

Their website is so vague it feels spooky. Honestly, that is just strange.

 

[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.

Since I assume this was in reference to my post, have you been able to find any made up or exaggerated numbers in what I posted?

 

[Bambistew]

How the dipstick that runs Makehuntinggreatagain page hasn't been sued for liable, is beyond me. I'm guessing its just a matter of time before he pisses off the wrong person.

 

[LuketheDog]

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

Yes, like the Vikings are 83.53% overrated this year...

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Yes, like the Vikings are 83.53% overrated this year...

Everyone knows that’s BS, way too low.

 

[Ben Long]

Mulecreek. BHA has a track record that goes back nearly 20 years. Certainly, we both can find issues and positions we've disagreed with it on. But what has it done that has not been in the interest of public land habitat and access? BHA's mission is clear and they follow it as the board directs. If you've a gripe, what specifically is BHA doing that's against its mission?

 

[JM77]

Mulecreek. BHA has a track record that goes back nearly 20 years. Certainly, we both can find issues and positions we've disagreed with it on. But what has it done that has not been in the interest of public land habitat and access? BHA's mission is clear and they follow it as the board directs. If you've a gripe, what specifically is BHA doing that's against its mission?

How about supporting legislation to fast track renewables on public land?

 

[npaden]

Since I assume this was in reference to my post, have you been able to find any made up or exaggerated numbers in what I posted?

It was mainly directed at the linked images in post #1. The first claim of 60% of operating funds coming from the anti-hunting foundations is wrong even if all 4 of the amounts listed on Schedule B are anti-hunting foundations. I come up with just under 50% and that is if all 4 sources were anti-hunting organizations. I tried running the numbers a few different ways and couldn't really get to 60%. The only way I could get close is if I took it as a % of expenses and then I still was a bit short. We know that the $1.39 mil of that is from the Western Conservation Foundation and I'm not sure you can really label it as a rabid anti-hunting organization. They do appear to be a rabid conservation organization and also gave money to TCRP, Trout Unlimited, Conservation Colorado, Hispanic Access Foundation, Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Vet Voice Foundation, and a whole lot of others.

If you exclude the Western Conservation Foundation donation and say that they other 3 donations that we don't know who they came from were all rabid anti-hunting organizations they would account for less than 20% of the revenue for 2017. Still a decent amount but a far cry from 60%.

Some of the other claims in the original post may be correct (I didn't bother to double check them) but revenues being down 22% would be expected after a year when revenues are up 154% and same with the increase in payroll, if you have a 154% increase in revenues in 2017 you can't immediately go and hire people you have to ramp it up and that would account for the increase in payroll in 2018. Those claims are just swinging numbers around. You would have to do an in depth analysis of the operations to know if they mean anything or not.

Your specific comments are relatively accurate. The one minor caveat is that the $1.39 grant from the Western Conservation Foundation wouldn't really be considered to be from 1 donor since they are considered to be a public charity. I'm not sure who the other grants would be from but I would assume that some of the other amounts were from public charities as well because the total "non public" support for the 5 years ended in 2017 was $1,093,132 so I think it is unlikely that $928,450 of that was received in 2017. The rules changed from requiring donations of more than $5,000 or 1% in 2016 to be reported to $5,000 or 2% of revenues in 2017 so I can't pinpoint out exactly what amount in 2017 was considered to be from non public sources.

As far as covering their payroll costs with membership dues I would be surprised if they did. I double checked and RMEF had membership dues of $9.1 mil in 2017 and their salaries and benefits were $10.7 million so dues covered about 85% of salaries and benefits. And they are a very established organization with 200,000+ dues paying members. I would think BHA covering 50% of their salaries and benefits with their dues doesn't seem that bad for a relatively young organization.

With all this said, I'm not even a member of BHA and am not sticking up for them. I just like to stick with facts and it seems clear to me that the information in the initial post is inflated at best. I think BHA could come out and clarify the 3 other donors, but I am not sure if they will. I do know that it is not one of the ones named in that list because they file a 990 and are required to disclose their grants and BHA is not on the list (Fund for a Better Future did not give BHA money in 2017 or if they did it was less than $5,000). The private foundations are going to be hard to get sorted out. The Wilburforce Foundation did give out $12 in grants in 2017, and it looks like $11.7 mil were to PC which I assume is public charities, and it shows there is an attachment A that lists them out but it isn't attached to the 990 that is available on Charity Navigator.

The Wyss Foundation gave out $38 mil to public charities in 2017 but I couldn't find a list of them either. One thing that was interesting was that they have notes receivable from the Nature Conservancy for over $3 mil so I guess you better not hunt on any Nature Conservancy land because evidently the rabid anti-hunting Wyss Foundation lent them the money to buy it.

I wasn't sure which Hewlett Foundation I should be looking at (there are several) but I actually found one that listed out the $2.3 mil in grants they paid out over $5,000 in 2017 and BHA wasn't on the list. Silly things like Hurricane Disaster relief and Giving Campaigns.

I'm going home now. I wasted way too much time on this today.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Ben,
Please show me anywhere prior in this thread that I have a gripe with BHA. My response in post #20 was to state that I find it completely justifiable that members would be interested in knowing who the major donors to BHA are given that such a small number of them contribute such a large percentage of the revenue that BHA takes in. I understand completely that legally they are not compelled to list them and I further understand that most other organizations, if not all, would do the same. This fact does not diminish my desire to know who they are. I am a life member of BHA, I like to know the company I keep. I think that is reasonable thought. YMMV.

My response in post's #38 and 39 were to show where I got my information from as my data and to some degree my integrity was being questioned. Post #49 was a bit of the same with a bit of snarcky thrown in for good measure. Again no gripe with BHA previously stated.

Now since you asked, supporting legislation aimed to speed the process of developing public land simply because its a green energy source would be #1 on my list of things they have done that is not in the interest of public land or access. Number two would be requesting push back on all O&G leases in southwest Wyoming due to migration and SG concerns while remaining completely silent while a solar farm is built smackdab in the middle of pronghorn migration corridor and right in the middle of SG PHMA. As far as other gripes I may have, number one on the list would be that BHA national shit all over a man that I have a tremendous amount of respect for. A man that did more for BHA in Wyoming than just about anyone. While he may not have been great at hosting a pint night, he damn sure knows how to fight for public access. They cut him loose and and could not provide a unified, coherent reason for doing so other than some BS about a crossbow.

I have a few other concerns but I have derailed this thread enough. In the end I am still a life member of BHA, I still support the fight for public land and access but yes I do have a couple of gripes with BHA national.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

It was mainly directed at the linked images in post #1. The first claim of 60% of operating funds coming from the anti-hunting foundations is wrong even if all 4 of the amounts listed on Schedule B are anti-hunting foundations. I come up with just under 50% and that is if all 4 sources were anti-hunting organizations. I tried running the numbers a few different ways and couldn't really get to 60%. The only way I could get close is if I took it as a % of expenses and then I still was a bit short. We know that the $1.39 mil of that is from the Western Conservation Foundation and I'm not sure you can really label it as a rabid anti-hunting organization. They do appear to be a rabid conservation organization and also gave money to TCRP, Trout Unlimited, Conservation Colorado, Hispanic Access Foundation, Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Vet Voice Foundation, and a whole lot of others.

If you exclude the Western Conservation Foundation donation and say that they other 3 donations that we don't know who they came from were all rabid anti-hunting organizations they would account for less than 20% of the revenue for 2017. Still a decent amount but a far cry from 60%.

Some of the other claims in the original post may be correct (I didn't bother to double check them) but revenues being down 22% would be expected after a year when revenues are up 154% and same with the increase in payroll, if you have a 154% increase in revenues in 2017 you can't immediately go and hire people you have to ramp it up and that would account for the increase in payroll in 2018. Those claims are just swinging numbers around. You would have to do an in depth analysis of the operations to know if they mean anything or not.

Your specific comments are relatively accurate. The one minor caveat is that the $1.39 grant from the Western Conservation Foundation wouldn't really be considered to be from 1 donor since they are considered to be a public charity. I'm not sure who the other grants would be from but I would assume that some of the other amounts were from public charities as well because the total "non public" support for the 5 years ended in 2017 was $1,093,132 so I think it is unlikely that $928,450 of that was received in 2017. The rules changed from requiring donations of more than $5,000 or 1% in 2016 to be reported to $5,000 or 2% of revenues in 2017 so I can't pinpoint out exactly what amount in 2017 was considered to be from non public sources.

As far as covering their payroll costs with membership dues I would be surprised if they did. I double checked and RMEF had membership dues of $9.1 mil in 2017 and their salaries and benefits were $10.7 million so dues covered about 85% of salaries and benefits. And they are a very established organization with 200,000+ dues paying members. I would think BHA covering 50% of their salaries and benefits with their dues doesn't seem that bad for a relatively young organization.

With all this said, I'm not even a member of BHA and am not sticking up for them. I just like to stick with facts and it seems clear to me that the information in the initial post is inflated at best. I think BHA could come out and clarify the 3 other donors, but I am not sure if they will. I do know that it is not one of the ones named in that list because they file a 990 and are required to disclose their grants and BHA is not on the list (Fund for a Better Future did not give BHA money in 2017 or if they did it was less than $5,000). The private foundations are going to be hard to get sorted out. The Wilburforce Foundation did give out $12 in grants in 2017, and it looks like $11.7 mil were to PC which I assume is public charities, and it shows there is an attachment A that lists them out but it isn't attached to the 990 that is available on Charity Navigator.

The Wyss Foundation gave out $38 mil to public charities in 2017 but I couldn't find a list of them either. One thing that was interesting was that they have notes receivable from the Nature Conservancy for over $3 mil so I guess you better not hunt on any Nature Conservancy land because evidently the rabid anti-hunting Wyss Foundation lent them the money to buy it.

I wasn't sure which Hewlett Foundation I should be looking at (there are several) but I actually found one that listed out the $2.3 mil in grants they paid out over $5,000 in 2017 and BHA wasn't on the list. Silly things like Hurricane Disaster relief and Giving Campaigns.

I'm going home now. I wasted way too much time on this today.

npaden,

Fair enough. I agree that calling those orgs rabid anti hunting is a stretch, although I hear those folks over at Vet Voice can get a little rowdy.

I'm not sure what the correct percentage of dues to salaries is either could be just perfect at 50% but I wouldn't outrun my members at that rate. Obviously Land thinks differently. That's fine too. Thank you for taking your time to look into these issues further.

 

[hossblur]

Mulecreek. BHA has a track record that goes back nearly 20 years. Certainly, we both can find issues and positions we've disagreed with it on. But what has it done that has not been in the interest of public land habitat and access? BHA's mission is clear and they follow it as the board directs. If you've a gripe, what specifically is BHA doing that's against its mission?

Interesting you ask.

Ever hunted a wind farm? Ever accessed a solar farm?


BHA asks a lot from their members. They ask folks like myself to look past my conservative leanings and trust that guys like Land and Ryan will look past their liberal leanings.

They ask that we join hands with folks who often oppose us for the good of a common goal.

PATAGONIA. If your wear any BHA gear, I need not tell you what a leap of faith joining with Yvon is for hunters. You've no doubt heard all about it.

They ask that guys who do ATV. Who do ride roads. And who do work in oil and gas, look past their personal interests and support a greater cause.


And then.......BHA asked that you not notice that they supported a bill expanding PUBLIC LAND DEVELOPMENT.

That's when I dropped.


So. Unlike RMEF, or MDf, etc. I don't feel it's asking too much for BHA. YO TRUST THEIR MEMBERS enough to disclose funding. And I don't buy for a second they don't because of privacy. The OP mentioned 3 that aren't private elsewhere.

After I dropped I got a lot of messages from dudes who were life members who had become VERY disenchanted. The "funding black hole" was mentioned each time.

We are supposed to view BHA as a new kind of group, incorporating variuos interests, breaking down boundaries. Maybe it's time they do the same with finances?


Last. I'll back Grizz.

Fisher beer got business. Short of that, some her committed volunteers did good work.

But i live in Utah. I didn't hear a beep from them(I begged) as Rob Bishop came up for reelection. I also was flabbergasted as they supported SFW expo with Jason Chaffetz as the keynote last year.

Seems they talk a LOT more tgan act in my neighborhood.

But I support my local guys 100% in what they try to do.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Yes, like the Vikings are 83.53% overrated this year...

They were picked 3rd in the NFC Central and ended 2nd so maybe a little underrated - but our season is over (we just have a painful trip to NO to prove it).

 

[Wind Gypsy]

It was mainly directed at the linked images in post #1. The first claim of 60% of operating funds coming from the anti-hunting foundations is wrong even if all 4 of the amounts listed on Schedule B are anti-hunting foundations. I come up with just under 50% and that is if all 4 sources were anti-hunting organizations. I tried running the numbers a few different ways and couldn't really get to 60%. The only way I could get close is if I took it as a % of expenses and then I still was a bit short. We know that the $1.39 mil of that is from the Western Conservation Foundation and I'm not sure you can really label it as a rabid anti-hunting organization. They do appear to be a rabid conservation organization and also gave money to TCRP, Trout Unlimited, Conservation Colorado, Hispanic Access Foundation, Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Vet Voice Foundation, and a whole lot of others.

If you exclude the Western Conservation Foundation donation and say that they other 3 donations that we don't know who they came from were all rabid anti-hunting organizations they would account for less than 20% of the revenue for 2017. Still a decent amount but a far cry from 60%.

Some of the other claims in the original post may be correct (I didn't bother to double check them) but revenues being down 22% would be expected after a year when revenues are up 154% and same with the increase in payroll, if you have a 154% increase in revenues in 2017 you can't immediately go and hire people you have to ramp it up and that would account for the increase in payroll in 2018. Those claims are just swinging numbers around. You would have to do an in depth analysis of the operations to know if they mean anything or not.

Your specific comments are relatively accurate. The one minor caveat is that the $1.39 grant from the Western Conservation Foundation wouldn't really be considered to be from 1 donor since they are considered to be a public charity. I'm not sure who the other grants would be from but I would assume that some of the other amounts were from public charities as well because the total "non public" support for the 5 years ended in 2017 was $1,093,132 so I think it is unlikely that $928,450 of that was received in 2017. The rules changed from requiring donations of more than $5,000 or 1% in 2016 to be reported to $5,000 or 2% of revenues in 2017 so I can't pinpoint out exactly what amount in 2017 was considered to be from non public sources.

As far as covering their payroll costs with membership dues I would be surprised if they did. I double checked and RMEF had membership dues of $9.1 mil in 2017 and their salaries and benefits were $10.7 million so dues covered about 85% of salaries and benefits. And they are a very established organization with 200,000+ dues paying members. I would think BHA covering 50% of their salaries and benefits with their dues doesn't seem that bad for a relatively young organization.

With all this said, I'm not even a member of BHA and am not sticking up for them. I just like to stick with facts and it seems clear to me that the information in the initial post is inflated at best. I think BHA could come out and clarify the 3 other donors, but I am not sure if they will. I do know that it is not one of the ones named in that list because they file a 990 and are required to disclose their grants and BHA is not on the list (Fund for a Better Future did not give BHA money in 2017 or if they did it was less than $5,000). The private foundations are going to be hard to get sorted out. The Wilburforce Foundation did give out $12 in grants in 2017, and it looks like $11.7 mil were to PC which I assume is public charities, and it shows there is an attachment A that lists them out but it isn't attached to the 990 that is available on Charity Navigator.

The Wyss Foundation gave out $38 mil to public charities in 2017 but I couldn't find a list of them either. One thing that was interesting was that they have notes receivable from the Nature Conservancy for over $3 mil so I guess you better not hunt on any Nature Conservancy land because evidently the rabid anti-hunting Wyss Foundation lent them the money to buy it.

I wasn't sure which Hewlett Foundation I should be looking at (there are several) but I actually found one that listed out the $2.3 mil in grants they paid out over $5,000 in 2017 and BHA wasn't on the list. Silly things like Hurricane Disaster relief and Giving Campaigns.

I'm going home now. I wasted way too much time on this today.

Thanks for your time and I apologize for driving you down this rabbit hole.

The below post seems that he was insinuating they lumped corporate product donations somewhere to skew #s which may have something to do with the 60%.