I wanted to see the money trail for myself so I spent numerous hours going through internet sites. which revealed that BHA gets the majority of their money (millions) from large foundations that support restricting access to lands that many hunters, fishers, trappers, and recreationists of many types currently use. Actual membership dues are only a small fraction of the money BHA is hauling in. You can find these big dollar BHA donations on the websites of the green foundations that are sending them money and you can see how the money is spent on BHA tax forms. I started by getting info on the Green Decoy website, then I looked up the foundations that GD mentioned, I also researched who Land Tawney has worked for and campaigned for. From everything I found online there are millions donated almost every year to BHA by these green leaning foundations as mentioned on the Green Decoys website, and the internet only shows democratic politicians including the Obama campaign, not a single Republican was mentioned that Land Tawney has supported, it appeared that he only opposed Republicans, not even any middle of the road Republicans were supported that i could find. It really appears they have am ingenious democratic political action group. But hey, if anyone can find otherwise where Republicans who support hunters and fishers have been supported by Tawney but I certainly welcome any info to be posted here on the forum that indicates otherwise so we all will know better?
The whole keeping public lands public was an incredibly brilliant move when it was relevent, but that will lose traction as it's no longer a real issue and as time passes BHA members will begin to realize that, at least it's not an issue until we get another liberal administration that starts taking multiple land use away from the majority of people, then it could become an issue again as local governments where th land grabs occur fight back against those federal land grabs.
I'm sure BHA will start getting involved in more actual conservation programs in order to keep the organization legitimate, it's a necessity for IRS survival. Wildlife and hunter/fishers/trappers will benefit, I welcome that.
There is a group that rates various charities based upon the amount of dollars taken in verses actual dollars spent on their purported purpose. Organizations like Rocky Mountain Elk and NWTF rank high, organizations like HSUS are some of the worst because they spend most money on salaries or politically and not for saving cats and dogs as they claim. I would like to know BHA's rating for percentage of money on the ground?
Outdoor folks were hungry for an organization that supports public lands, I think many people believe BHA is the only choice, but some of the other organizations actually put more dollars on the ground, maybe those organizations need to do a better job of informing outdoor folks about their gound work and be more publicly supportive of public lands? It's obvious people want that!
This forum has BHA supporters and some who oppose BHA political efforts, I think rather than the two sides only being confrontational my hope is that BHA supporters can lead your organization into putting more dollars into conservation projects that improve lands, waters, and wildlife. I hope less money will be used in politics trying to take away public access from the majority of users, which is all the rest of us. I think there is a good balance of roaded and non-roaded areas, I don't think we need to continually expand wilderness, how about maintaining the wilderness that we have? To take away access from the majority to benefit a minority seems very elitist and shows a lack of cooperation, understanding, and fairness to the many other users who are being increasingly forced into fewer and fewer areas that still have access for the majority to recreate.
