Copy and paste link to view PDF file.
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/990.php?ein=870575540&yr=200812&rt=990&t9=A
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/990.php?ein=870575540&yr=200812&rt=990&t9=A
SFW's 2008 990 finally posted online
- Thread starter bugle007
- Start date
ColoradoOak
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,920
Wow, someone spent a lot more time on their Schedule A this year! LMAO!
ramtagless
Active Member
- Messages
- 835
It all seems fairly straight forward. Page 10 24 b is kind of interesting - how can 'landowner tags' be an expense of $426,350? It is probably explainable - I am like hawkeye - don't know enough to figure out the answer.
That is why they need to adopt a policy of full disclosure. They should release quarterly statements with a short, concise, one page explanation of what has been posted.
That is why they need to adopt a policy of full disclosure. They should release quarterly statements with a short, concise, one page explanation of what has been posted.
ARROWHNTR
Active Member
- Messages
- 452
I think I remember at some of the banquets some of the tags being actioned off where not Conservation Permits but landowner tags, maybe they buy them from the landowner and then resale them for more?? not sure just an idea but over 400K in one year seems like a lot!
Outdoors
Member
- Messages
- 11
>I need to start a "Conservation
>Organization".
The last couple of years have been TERRIBLE for conservation orgs. A few leaders in those orgs are making a good living but has been tough.
Folks no longer can use growing home equity as an ATM so lots of folks had to cut back on discretionary items and that means donations and memberships fell.
Add to that the decline in stock market and that caused folks to pull back, too. Some estates are left to non-profits and most estates are lower due to husing values and stock values being down.
Laid off folks also have to pull back.
Self-employed folks like plumbers, ranchers, dry-cleaners have seen revenues fall and that makes it tougher to support orgs to the extent usually do.
Most orgs have laid off staff and cut salaries. My company had to do this as well and it sucks. Now, give me free stuff to auction and raffle and I will be hiring next month.
>Organization".
The last couple of years have been TERRIBLE for conservation orgs. A few leaders in those orgs are making a good living but has been tough.
Folks no longer can use growing home equity as an ATM so lots of folks had to cut back on discretionary items and that means donations and memberships fell.
Add to that the decline in stock market and that caused folks to pull back, too. Some estates are left to non-profits and most estates are lower due to husing values and stock values being down.
Laid off folks also have to pull back.
Self-employed folks like plumbers, ranchers, dry-cleaners have seen revenues fall and that makes it tougher to support orgs to the extent usually do.
Most orgs have laid off staff and cut salaries. My company had to do this as well and it sucks. Now, give me free stuff to auction and raffle and I will be hiring next month.
A couple of Items that jump right out:
1. This organization is large enough that AUDITED financial statements need to be completed.
2. pg 10 line 24a - should probably be listed under Management & General not Program
3. pg 11 line 22 - $500,000 in loans to a "key person" MUST BE disclosed on 990...It is NOT! Part II of Sch. L should be attached.
4. Nice to see an actual CPA firm prepare the 990.
5. Pg 3 line 4 - as much as SFW is up on capitol hill, I do not see how this is not marked YES.
1. This organization is large enough that AUDITED financial statements need to be completed.
2. pg 10 line 24a - should probably be listed under Management & General not Program
3. pg 11 line 22 - $500,000 in loans to a "key person" MUST BE disclosed on 990...It is NOT! Part II of Sch. L should be attached.
4. Nice to see an actual CPA firm prepare the 990.
5. Pg 3 line 4 - as much as SFW is up on capitol hill, I do not see how this is not marked YES.
llamapacker
Moderator
- Messages
- 1,071
I just reviewed the form and also noted the $500,000 on page 11 of form 990 as well.
I looked all over for part II of schedule L, and didn't find it either. This is a pretty significant number.
Overall, I was stuck by the fact there are only 3 voting members of this organization.
Also struck by the fact that their cash position increased to roughly $4.4M. I would hope the money they raise is being spent on the ground, not just put in the bank.
What land do they own which is worth more than $1M? Will this land ever be deeded to the state, etc., as some sort of public land, or is this just assets and the playground for the executives?
This is a peak at much relevant info, and a good start for the meeting.
Bill
I looked all over for part II of schedule L, and didn't find it either. This is a pretty significant number.
Overall, I was stuck by the fact there are only 3 voting members of this organization.
Also struck by the fact that their cash position increased to roughly $4.4M. I would hope the money they raise is being spent on the ground, not just put in the bank.
What land do they own which is worth more than $1M? Will this land ever be deeded to the state, etc., as some sort of public land, or is this just assets and the playground for the executives?
This is a peak at much relevant info, and a good start for the meeting.
Bill
ColoradoOak
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,920
Don got a very significant raise in 2008...
Utah400Elk
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,268
LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-10 AT 08:45AM (MST)[p]I might be wrong on this but I believe a few people (Don and a few others) were paid consulting fees for the expo. I can't make it to the meeting but I would like somebody to ask about the $500,000 loan. Who got it? What was the APR or is it a free loan? How often has SFW loaned money to "key persons"? Have all loans made by SFW to "key persons" been repaid?
ARROWHNTR
Active Member
- Messages
- 452
I am not an accountant but isn't the section with 500K "loan" that you are refering to under Liabilities
22 Payable to current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, highest compensated employees, and disqualified
persons Complete Part II of Schedule L
To me this doesnt say its a loan they gave to key employees it says it money they owe key personel.
22 Payable to current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, highest compensated employees, and disqualified
persons Complete Part II of Schedule L
To me this doesnt say its a loan they gave to key employees it says it money they owe key personel.
I can answer the landowner tag question. We market several different Landowner Association tags at our banquets. The money that you see listed there is the money we raised for these groups and have given back. As a marketing fee we charge a % the same as what the state allows us to keep with Conseravtion tags 10%.
Some one make a list of these question to be asked at the up coming meeting.
Troy Justensen
Some one make a list of these question to be asked at the up coming meeting.
Troy Justensen
Sounds like the books are starting to open and some of you sound quite disappointed that there is not a 3 million dollar consulting fee for Don Peay. Shouldn't we all be happy if the books check out?
Jason Yates
Basin Archery Shop
http://www.basinarcheryshop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!!!
Discount code = monstermuleys
Jason Yates
Basin Archery Shop
http://www.basinarcheryshop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!!!
Discount code = monstermuleys
Here's a Million Dollar Question.....
In comparing 2007 and 2008 990's for SFW:
2007 shows Land on the books of $1,369,352.
2008 shows Increase in Land Value of $999,845.
2008 show Land on the books of $1,302,010.
This is actually a decrease of $1,067,187 from 2007 to 2008.
Where did this go?
$1,369,352 + 999,845 - 1,067,187 = $1,302,010
In comparing 2007 and 2008 990's for SFW:
2007 shows Land on the books of $1,369,352.
2008 shows Increase in Land Value of $999,845.
2008 show Land on the books of $1,302,010.
This is actually a decrease of $1,067,187 from 2007 to 2008.
Where did this go?
$1,369,352 + 999,845 - 1,067,187 = $1,302,010
ramtagless
Active Member
- Messages
- 835
Makes sense.
ramtagless
Active Member
- Messages
- 835
Sorry...I intended for that post to go under the explanation on land owner tags.
Mtquivers brings up a good point but I think he is approaching the question from the wrong angle. Are there a few twisted freaks that are secretly hoping they can uncover some egregious misuse of funds by SFW? Probably a few.
I think the vast majority of supporters and potential supporters of SFW hope to find out that all funds are being used appropriately and there is no reason to not support them. Adopt a policy of full disclosure, explain how funds are being used and support will grow with fewer questions and conspiracy theories, if everything is above board. Pretty simple...
Mtquivers brings up a good point but I think he is approaching the question from the wrong angle. Are there a few twisted freaks that are secretly hoping they can uncover some egregious misuse of funds by SFW? Probably a few.
I think the vast majority of supporters and potential supporters of SFW hope to find out that all funds are being used appropriately and there is no reason to not support them. Adopt a policy of full disclosure, explain how funds are being used and support will grow with fewer questions and conspiracy theories, if everything is above board. Pretty simple...
woodruffhunter
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,696
"Are there a few twisted freaks that are secretly hoping they can uncover some egregious misuse of funds by SFW?"
Absolutely, correct IMO. Everytime a question is answered, it only opens more whining and complaining. Many of these people will NEVER be happy regardless of what is answered and/or changed.
Absolutely, correct IMO. Everytime a question is answered, it only opens more whining and complaining. Many of these people will NEVER be happy regardless of what is answered and/or changed.
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,012
Woodruffhunter-
Let's not jump the gun yet. SFW has promised to provide a bunch of information at the upoming meeting and on its website but it hasn't yet. I agree that we need to give Don a fair opportunity to present his side and answer all questions. That is all I am asking for.
I can't speak for anyone else but I hope that SFW provides a complete accounting and answers all questions. Many of us have been asking for that for some time. I do not classify myself as a SFW hater. I am a dissapointed that it took so much wrangling to get SFW to agree to open the books and show what it is doing with monies raised from the sale of public permits but I am encouraged by what we have heard is forthcoming.
As I have stated before, if we receive honest and detailed answers to the long standinging questions surrounding SFW, I may just rejoin the ranks. I doubt that I will ever hop on Monstermuleys and defend them with the fervor of MTQuivers but I may end up being a paying member again.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
Let's not jump the gun yet. SFW has promised to provide a bunch of information at the upoming meeting and on its website but it hasn't yet. I agree that we need to give Don a fair opportunity to present his side and answer all questions. That is all I am asking for.
I can't speak for anyone else but I hope that SFW provides a complete accounting and answers all questions. Many of us have been asking for that for some time. I do not classify myself as a SFW hater. I am a dissapointed that it took so much wrangling to get SFW to agree to open the books and show what it is doing with monies raised from the sale of public permits but I am encouraged by what we have heard is forthcoming.
As I have stated before, if we receive honest and detailed answers to the long standinging questions surrounding SFW, I may just rejoin the ranks. I doubt that I will ever hop on Monstermuleys and defend them with the fervor of MTQuivers but I may end up being a paying member again.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
I agree
Anytime someone takes a Public Resource (tags) and converts them to a "Private" Resource, there needs to be Full disclosure, proper accounting, and proper reasoning for doing such.
As a hunter and outdoorsman, I want to ensure my children have the same opportunities, if not better, than I did for hunting, fishing, and camping.
SFW does some great things, no doubt, but non-profits MUST err on the side of caution when it comes to disclosure. Lay it all out so the public can best decide where to put its money. The 990 begins to do this, but some key information is missing (and required to be disclosed).
I know some projects take time, but an Organization that brings in $7.2 million in revenue, yet has $5.7 million in UNRESTRICTED ASSETS is acting more like a Holding company than disbursing that money to needed areas in Fish & Wildlife.
I want to know that the money I contribute goes to Projects, not earning interest in an investment account.
2009 will be an interesting year to compare with 2007 and 2008.
Anytime someone takes a Public Resource (tags) and converts them to a "Private" Resource, there needs to be Full disclosure, proper accounting, and proper reasoning for doing such.
As a hunter and outdoorsman, I want to ensure my children have the same opportunities, if not better, than I did for hunting, fishing, and camping.
SFW does some great things, no doubt, but non-profits MUST err on the side of caution when it comes to disclosure. Lay it all out so the public can best decide where to put its money. The 990 begins to do this, but some key information is missing (and required to be disclosed).
I know some projects take time, but an Organization that brings in $7.2 million in revenue, yet has $5.7 million in UNRESTRICTED ASSETS is acting more like a Holding company than disbursing that money to needed areas in Fish & Wildlife.
I want to know that the money I contribute goes to Projects, not earning interest in an investment account.
2009 will be an interesting year to compare with 2007 and 2008.
woodruffhunter
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,696
RE: I agree
"Let's not jump the gun yet. SFW has promised to provide a bunch of information at the upoming meeting and on its website but it hasn't yet. I agree that we need to give Don a fair opportunity to present his side and answer all questions. That is all I am asking for."
Hawk:
I agree with 100% with your statement. I do not think this is asking too much. What I get sick of reading is complaints about the meeting, before it has even taken place!
Listening to Fishon take cheap shots about his former employeers makes me sick! It sounds like there are enough level heads, from both sides, that really want whats best for wildlife management. I hope both sides find common ground.
"Let's not jump the gun yet. SFW has promised to provide a bunch of information at the upoming meeting and on its website but it hasn't yet. I agree that we need to give Don a fair opportunity to present his side and answer all questions. That is all I am asking for."
Hawk:
I agree with 100% with your statement. I do not think this is asking too much. What I get sick of reading is complaints about the meeting, before it has even taken place!
Listening to Fishon take cheap shots about his former employeers makes me sick! It sounds like there are enough level heads, from both sides, that really want whats best for wildlife management. I hope both sides find common ground.
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,610
RE: I agree
>Anytime someone takes a Public Resource
>(tags) and converts them to
>a "Private" Resource, there needs
>to be Full disclosure, proper
>accounting, and proper reasoning for
>doing such.
>
>As a hunter and outdoorsman, I
>want to ensure my children
>have the same opportunities, if
>not better, than I did
>for hunting, fishing, and camping.
>
>
>SFW does some great things, no
>doubt, but non-profits MUST err
>on the side of caution
>when it comes to disclosure.
> Lay it all out
>so the public can best
>decide where to put its
>money. The 990 begins
>to do this, but some
>key information is missing (and
>required to be disclosed).
>
>I know some projects take time,
>but an Organization that brings
>in $7.2 million in revenue,
>yet has $5.7 million in
>UNRESTRICTED ASSETS is acting more
>like a Holding company than
>disbursing that money to needed
>areas in Fish & Wildlife.
>
>
>I want to know that the
>money I contribute goes to
>Projects, not earning interest in
>an investment account.
>
>2009 will be an interesting year
>to compare with 2007 and
>2008.
Isn't this pretty much what most of us hope for? Instead of "key persons", names would be better. A road map for what will be or is hoped to be done with the 5.7 million would be nice. Expo draw odds shouldn't be really hard to do. The majority of us don't need accounting down to the penny. SFW may be truly on the up and up, but when you go as far as they do to not be transparent they create the questioning of there organization. Sometimes the quickest route between two points is a straight line. If you take in 200 tags from the public, you MUST account for exactly how much they went for and EXACTLY what the money will be spent for. Landowner tags or donated tags are the SFW's and while it would be nice to know what they do with them, it isn't esential. I know what the DWR's short term and long term plans for wildlife is( do nothing, change rules every year, never wait for data to change course, buy lots of new trucks), it would be nice for SFW to have short term and long term road maps since they fancy themselves as DWR jr. Basically don't make the easy things difficult and there wouldn't be questions about everything. SFW has employees, they should get public relations person because while he may be powerful, Don talks in circles like the politicians he lobbies, sometimes yes and no answers are the best, not slide shows and stories.
>Anytime someone takes a Public Resource
>(tags) and converts them to
>a "Private" Resource, there needs
>to be Full disclosure, proper
>accounting, and proper reasoning for
>doing such.
>
>As a hunter and outdoorsman, I
>want to ensure my children
>have the same opportunities, if
>not better, than I did
>for hunting, fishing, and camping.
>
>
>SFW does some great things, no
>doubt, but non-profits MUST err
>on the side of caution
>when it comes to disclosure.
> Lay it all out
>so the public can best
>decide where to put its
>money. The 990 begins
>to do this, but some
>key information is missing (and
>required to be disclosed).
>
>I know some projects take time,
>but an Organization that brings
>in $7.2 million in revenue,
>yet has $5.7 million in
>UNRESTRICTED ASSETS is acting more
>like a Holding company than
>disbursing that money to needed
>areas in Fish & Wildlife.
>
>
>I want to know that the
>money I contribute goes to
>Projects, not earning interest in
>an investment account.
>
>2009 will be an interesting year
>to compare with 2007 and
>2008.
Isn't this pretty much what most of us hope for? Instead of "key persons", names would be better. A road map for what will be or is hoped to be done with the 5.7 million would be nice. Expo draw odds shouldn't be really hard to do. The majority of us don't need accounting down to the penny. SFW may be truly on the up and up, but when you go as far as they do to not be transparent they create the questioning of there organization. Sometimes the quickest route between two points is a straight line. If you take in 200 tags from the public, you MUST account for exactly how much they went for and EXACTLY what the money will be spent for. Landowner tags or donated tags are the SFW's and while it would be nice to know what they do with them, it isn't esential. I know what the DWR's short term and long term plans for wildlife is( do nothing, change rules every year, never wait for data to change course, buy lots of new trucks), it would be nice for SFW to have short term and long term road maps since they fancy themselves as DWR jr. Basically don't make the easy things difficult and there wouldn't be questions about everything. SFW has employees, they should get public relations person because while he may be powerful, Don talks in circles like the politicians he lobbies, sometimes yes and no answers are the best, not slide shows and stories.
Long passed the point of jumping the gun.
SFW is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. Contributions made to such organizations are Tax-Deductible.
SFW has a legal and ethical obligation to disclose its financial information, not check a box on the 990 (which is not readily available) and say the information is "available upon request."
If it wasn't for this foundation website (which I knew about in dealing with other non-profits) that allowed you to look up SFW's 990, the VAST majority of people who contribute to SFW would have NO idea where to look.
SFW has a website, there is no legitimate reason the 990's should not be posted on their website. Just look at RMEF's website- http://www.rmef.org/Footer/Financial/Financial.htm
"Promised Information" does no good to sportsmen looking to fund fish and wildlife NOW.
Bottom-line is that in 2008 $.79 of every $1.00 contributed to SFW is still sitting in SFW's accounts.
SFW is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. Contributions made to such organizations are Tax-Deductible.
SFW has a legal and ethical obligation to disclose its financial information, not check a box on the 990 (which is not readily available) and say the information is "available upon request."
If it wasn't for this foundation website (which I knew about in dealing with other non-profits) that allowed you to look up SFW's 990, the VAST majority of people who contribute to SFW would have NO idea where to look.
SFW has a website, there is no legitimate reason the 990's should not be posted on their website. Just look at RMEF's website- http://www.rmef.org/Footer/Financial/Financial.htm
"Promised Information" does no good to sportsmen looking to fund fish and wildlife NOW.
Bottom-line is that in 2008 $.79 of every $1.00 contributed to SFW is still sitting in SFW's accounts.
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,461
RE: I agree
LAST EDITED ON Mar-12-10 AT 02:43PM (MST)[p]There are a couple of for sure aspects anytime $FW disclosures come to the for front-----
#1---Out comes the -challenge everything- crowd.....
#2---Out comes the -they are perfect crowd-.....no matter what is in plain Black and White.....$$$$$...scam.
#3---Out comes the 'I Benefit From $FW' crowd....
As far as the '$500,000.00 Loan'........maybe good ole 'Charity Pay Check' needed the $$$$ to run with the new Full Curl Society'......(like we need yet another Sheep org.)...or maybe not?
A guy just cannot get enough 'Charity Paychecks'......($FW,$FH, UTFNAWS, Full Curl----$$$$)...got a family to feed---braces---college funds...wife wants to remodel....ya know..
Thank goodness that the Conservation Tags have a 90%/10% mandate....or squat would be getting done for Habitat/Wildlife.
Atleast the Sundance Log Home isn't listed as an upkeep expense...
Anyone wanna put $100.00 bucks up that says next years Expo $cam Convention Tag$ drawing will NOT be Public Results.....but will be private Email results???
Robb
'SFW turns fellow hunters against fellow hunters'
LAST EDITED ON Mar-12-10 AT 02:43PM (MST)[p]There are a couple of for sure aspects anytime $FW disclosures come to the for front-----
#1---Out comes the -challenge everything- crowd.....
#2---Out comes the -they are perfect crowd-.....no matter what is in plain Black and White.....$$$$$...scam.
#3---Out comes the 'I Benefit From $FW' crowd....
As far as the '$500,000.00 Loan'........maybe good ole 'Charity Pay Check' needed the $$$$ to run with the new Full Curl Society'......(like we need yet another Sheep org.)...or maybe not?
A guy just cannot get enough 'Charity Paychecks'......($FW,$FH, UTFNAWS, Full Curl----$$$$)...got a family to feed---braces---college funds...wife wants to remodel....ya know..
Thank goodness that the Conservation Tags have a 90%/10% mandate....or squat would be getting done for Habitat/Wildlife.
Atleast the Sundance Log Home isn't listed as an upkeep expense...
Anyone wanna put $100.00 bucks up that says next years Expo $cam Convention Tag$ drawing will NOT be Public Results.....but will be private Email results???
Robb
'SFW turns fellow hunters against fellow hunters'
woodruffhunter
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,696
RE: I agree
Robb:
Yeah, I want to put up "a hundred bucks".
Good luck on the draws this year!!
Robb:
Yeah, I want to put up "a hundred bucks".
Good luck on the draws this year!!
dryflyelk
Active Member
- Messages
- 842
RE: I agree
I wonder how SFW and MDF would fare on this site? Here's RMEF.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4406
I wonder how SFW and MDF would fare on this site? Here's RMEF.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4406
A
Addicted
Guest
RE: I agree
I wonder what it takes to get that site to rate the SFW? Oh wait that would require that all numbers be made public and all paperwork filled out and accounted for.
I wonder what it takes to get that site to rate the SFW? Oh wait that would require that all numbers be made public and all paperwork filled out and accounted for.
