What percent?

[DirtyTough]

What percent of incoming funds should a conservation group be able to put back into wildlife? And how much do you think a group should strive for?

I see a lot of talk on here about not enough money going back to the wildlife and a lot of talk about the projects done with the money. I just never see anybody say what percent would make them happy.

 

[Deerlove]

Well hopefully more than 13 percent which is what the figures showed last years convention.

 

[NVBighorn]

Are you talking about an organization with paid staff or not?

 

[DirtyTough]

I'm talking about orgs like RMEF, FNAWS, SFW, MDF. I have no clue if they have payed staff or not?

 

[dillon]

I wish I knew what they actually do put back into the wildlife. I think that it should be like working for the government if you sale a tag you should have to very specifically account for all funds and what they went into doing, and they should be made public. Organizations with paid staff should not be paid with allocated funds from an auction tag donated by the state. That is my opinion.

Dillon

 

[BrowningRage]

I think the majority of us would like to know that even 50% of memberships fees, auctioned tags, and raffled tags was going back into our wildlife...

I think a business that uses 50% of it's 'earnings' to provide the service it states it will is doing a pretty good job. With the 13% reported last year, that means that there was an 87% mark-up in cost-to-service ratio... That's a serious rip off.

 

[DirtyTough]

I'm not just talking about SFW. I am talking about all the big orgs. Please don't turn this into another SFW bash cause that was not my intention.

I think a group should be able to put more then 50% back into wildlife. I was thinking more like 75+.

 

[deadibob]

any non-profit group which can't put at least 50% of revenues towards the cause they are promoting is a get rich for someone scam at worst and mis-managed at best. I would expect 70% + of revenues to go towards the cause or I'm just wasting my money thinking that my donation is going to help when it's actually being wasted.

If SFW truly is only putting 13% on the ground then someone is guilty of either poor management & waste or fraud.

Many non-profit orgs. are no better than pyramid schemes. They get rich preying on the emotions of people (PETA, defenders of wildlife, sierra club, pick your cause). People get a warm & fuzzy feeling thinking they are doing good when that money is just feeding the machine. Ad in the fact that some are being subsidized by govt. and that makes it even worse.

 

[BigFin]

Here are the top 5 rated hunting/conservation groups by Charity Navigator.

Ducks Unlimited puts an impressive 88.6% into program expenses.

1. Ducks Unlimited - TN
2. Safari Club International Foundation - AZ
3. California Waterfowl Association - CA
4. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation - MT
5. U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation - OH


Here is the link

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=48



"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

 

[spcheuvront]

Guys;

I am very proud to say that the Buckskin chapter of the Arizona
Deer Association puts the majority of it's banquet funds on the ground with volunteer labor.

Being a member of the ADA they keep 100% of the banquet funds.

Not one penny goes to the parent organization.

The Buckskin Chapter keeps back a couple of thousand to do mailings and to help get next years banquet on it's way.

Yes, the rest goes into deer projects.

I don't know what the percentage is but for a $35,000.00
banquet they put aprox. $33,000.00 on the ground.

This is how the Good guys do it, and I'm darn proud of all of them.

Steve Cheuvront

 

[HillbillyNnevada]

Wildlife nonprofit administrators shouldn't be drawing a salary. The only people that should be getting paid for their efforts are contractors in the field, that is if volunteers are not available. You don't see your local Rotary Club, Lions Club or soup kitchen administrators taking salaries. It is supposed to be a charity after all. Do it for the love of the wildlife. The nonprofit president doesn't have to rule as a king, rotate the position around so it isn't too burdensome for its members. Just my opinion.

 

[llamapacker]

From the Charity Navigator site above:

RMEF puts 94.1% of their funds back into programs. Overhead and salaries are less than 6%.
That is very responsible use of donors money.

Bill