July 20, 2017

SAM Will Host Shed Hunter Gathering….However…..

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, along with the Maine Bowhunters Association, will host what is being called Maine Shed Hunter Get Together. The event is described as being a chance for “shed antler addicts” to bring samplings of their trophies to share with others. It is said to be an “informal” gathering.

However, I believe that it is a good idea to use such a gathering to educate shed hunters and wannabe shed hunters on the proper way to go about doing it with the least negative impact on over-wintering wildlife, in particular deer.

Some states across the nation have been forced to prohibit shed hunting because of the resulting threat from unintended and intended harassment of deer and other wild ungulates. Deer, we know, are often surviving on limited resources of food and energy. The last thing that any deer needs is being harassed by a shed hunter. The timing of when it’s best to hunt antler sheds, can coincide with the same times that deer are most vulnerable.

In visiting some of the website of businesses that offer shed hunting excursions, photos show snowmobiles and ATVs regularly being used to access areas known for finding sheds. While it doesn’t mean that sheds are only found and collected in deer yards, hunters should be made aware that any activity that causes a deer to run to escape, unnecessarily, can contribute to a deer’s death.

It is not my intention to suggest that shed hunting should be necessarily banned, but I would hope that the Fish and Wildlife Department, in conjunction with businesses that are advertising shed hunting excursions, would undertake an educational program designed to limit any and all negative impacts to the animals during the event.

Share

SAM’s Testimony on Right To Hunt Amendment, Makes Claims Not Entirely True

Recently I wrote about a proposed constitutional amendment in Maine that is being presented as an amendment to protect the “right” to hunt, trap and fish – LD 11. I also wrote that this proposal was one that I could support and I was wrong to have made the statement using the words that I did because I failed to succinctly express the full truth in my statement. Please let me explain.

Yesterday, I was reading David Trahan’s (Executive Director of the Sportman’s Alliance of Maine) testimony before the Legislative Committee in support of the proposed amendment.

To many, his words ring true, much because most of us have been taught certain things about our federal and state constitutions and the rights we have been granted under those constitution. Men don’t grant rights to anyone. They simply claim ownership of them and hand them back to us in some kind of limited form or fully deny us of such rights.

Trahan states that when this nation was founded, wildlife was “placed in the public trust” and as such we had the right to take it for sustenance. Therefore, Americans have always possessed the right to hunt, fish and trap. I will have to save for another day any debate on this so-called public trust and our inherent right to hunt, fish and trap. I will proceed from the perspective of most that they do have either a right or a privilege.

As Mr. Trahan also pointed out, man decided that in order to sustain game and other wildlife, they must construct laws to limit that activity. What happened to our inherent “right” to hunt, trap and fish when the limitations by law became enforced? Is anything really a “right” when it is controlled by man? We evidently believe so. When men, because they couldn’t maintain viable game populations through their own disciplines, called upon man-governments to do it for them, it began the process of destroying any semblance of a right to hunt. I ask once again, what happened to a so-called “right” to hunt wildlife “placed in the public trust” when at least some of that right was ceded over to government and restricted?

This is not that much different than the argument of sovereignty, in which most people do not understand sovereignty of an individual or a government agency. How are you a sovereign individual? Oh, you might say, “Nobody tells me what to do! I’m my own man!” But you are not. You might be a legend in your own mind, but you are not a sovereign individual. Once a man agrees to become part of a community, whether it is a small as a neighborhood or as large as a nation, they have agreed to relinquish that sovereignty and place it under the control of the government. Your act of relinquishment places decisions about your life into the hands of the controlling government agencies.

In Maine, at some point in time, the full right to hunt, trap and fish, was ceded to the State Government to control and make the decisions for us as to what, when and how we might harvest game. Trahan points this out in his testimony. In reality, the sportsmen have very little control over their perceived right to hunt. What has evolved since the creation of game and wildlife laws, is that the government agency formulated to oversee hunting, trapping and fishing, call the shots. Yup, proposals for new laws can be presented. Sometimes they get through a committee and most times not. You are heard before a committee but if you can’t get by the committee then what has become of your “right” to hunt, trap and fish. If you do get through committee you are at the mercy of the Legislature. Where then is your protected right?

Many believe that an amendment to the Constitution will guarantee, protect or create a “right” to hunt, trap and fish. They are wrong. I have written many times on this subject and stated that unless an amendment mandated or forced the government to do something, it is nothing more than words on a piece of paper.

The proposed LD 11 states, in reference to the right of the people of Maine to hunt, fish and trap, that this right: “may not be infringed.” (emboldening added) This is not a mandate. It does not force the Legislature, the Governor, Law Enforcement, or anybody else to stop any infringement of a person’s right to hunt, trap and fish. Go ask a lawyer – or at least an intelligent and honest one (yeah I know). Or go research it yourself. “May” is not a mandate – only a suggestion.

Further, the amendment says that this non infringement of the right to hunt, trap and fish is subject to “reasonable” laws enacted by the Legislature and “reasonable” rules adopted by the department in charge of management of game, fish and other wildlife. Is a “reasonable” law or rule an infringement? We’ve already established that the protection against infringement is non binding because the lawyers chose “may” instead of “must.”

So, who decides what “reasonable” means? I hope you are beginning to understand.

The amendment establishes that the department in reference is supposed to “promote wildlife conservation and management” and “maintain natural resources in trust for public use” (emboldening added) and this evidently will “preserve the future of hunting and fishing.” Nothing here is a mandate that forces anybody to do anything. What is wildlife conservation? As it is in operation today, wildlife conservation becomes a matter of which social entity has the most dollars and the loudest mouth to force their idealistic perceptions and conceptions of wildlife conservation.

The Department, according to this amendment will “maintain” natural resources. Maintain them how and to what levels of population that will guarantee, protect or create the “right” to hunt, trap and fish? This, of course, is left up to the Department, which is what takes places now. There is no mandate. There is no protection of any right.

The amendment further states that “public hunting and fishing are the preferred means…” (emboldening added) Where is the mandate here that will guarantee, protect or create a “right” to hunt, trap and fish? The Department might “prefer” to use hunting and fishing but what if they decide to import wolves to control populations of deer and moose? Where is the mandate? Where is the protection of any “right” to hunt, trap and fish? And would such a decision be “reasonable?”

The truth is, that while this is better language than previously proposed in other amendments, voters in Maine should not be misled to believe that this amendment, as written, will guarantee, protect or create for Maine citizens, the “right” to hunt, trap and fish.

And on the reverse of this, as I have already read in a few spreads of clap trap nonsense, such an amendment, as written will not destroy the process to petition the state. This should be obvious once you understand this proposal has nothing in it that is a mandate, forcing anybody to do anything.

When I said this amendment was something I could support, that statement was not accurate and I apologize for misleading people, if I did. First, I could not “support” such and amendment in the literal sense because I am not a legal resident of Maine and therefore could not vote for it if I wanted.

My thinking at the time was that while there still were no mandates in the proposal, perhaps the language was such that it might deter the onslaught of lawsuits and referendums that have been piled onto the Pine Tree State. It may, in fact, increase them. It is difficult to assess.

I will work harder to choose my words and the statements I make more carefully.

Share

Keeping History Alive

Share

SAM Celebrates Question 3 Victory With Party

Share

Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine Pushing Three Bills This Session

I have heard that the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) is pushing for support of three bills being presented before the Maine Legislature, that are described as in support and protection of hunting, fishing and trapping, changing the way signatures are gathered for public referendum items, and banning public referendum on wildlife issues. Let me address them one at a time.

First, there appears to be another attempt to somehow, through the Legislature, “protect the right to hunt.” I have not seen the language, which, to me, is of utmost importance. It is mostly a waste of time to support any law or constitutional amendment that does not go far enough to protect a right to hunt, fish and trap. What most don’t see is that what has been mostly presented so far, and this is true in several states that have already passed some kind of law to protect hunting, fishing and trapping, is that there is a difference between protecting a right for the opportunity to hunt, fish and trap, and the actual right to hunt, fish and trap. “Opportunities,” as the word is almost always wiggled into any attempt at fake protection of hunting, fishing and trapping, can take on many disguises, some of which one has to use their imagination to see any protection at all.

As things stand currently in Maine, most sportsmen are presented with “opportunities” to hunt, fish and trap. Would outdoor sportsmen be just as happy, years down the road, if those “opportunities” shrank to little or no chance to hunt, fish or trap? Any law passed worded with “provide opportunities” would only require the absolute minimum in order to fulfill the mandate. Thought must be given this matter.

What I have been witness to in other states that include only “opportunities” is that they can tell someone at what percentage the voters passed or rejected the law. Other than that, it really has no teeth, but might possibly discourage some under-funded environmentalist group from suing…but don’t hold your breath.

On the other hand, any law or constitutional amendment MUST provide a mandate, that whoever is in control of game management, must manage all game species “for surplus harvest.” I’m not stupid and I understand this is language fish and game departments, as well as slimy politicians, don’t want to see in any law or amendment. They hate placing mandates on themselves. It cramps their style. However, the only way that the actual act of hunting, trapping and fishing can be guaranteed is by including a mandate that the department must manage the game species for surplus harvest, otherwise what’s the point of it all? That would certainly take care of protecting opportunities.

I would fully support an amendment that contains the appropriate language. I wouldn’t oppose a useless amendment for protecting “opportunities,” but I would spend any time supporting it.

A second issue involves some kind of law that would require a different structure for gathering signatures in order to place a proposal on the ballot as a public referendum. Once again, I have not seen the language, but would support a change that would more equitably provide signatures that most closely represents the voting public. Maine has a wide disparaging population that goes hand in hand with political idealism. It appears that it becomes a bit too easy for someone to focus signature gathering on the most densely populated areas of Southern Maine, where residents there more closely resemble citizens of Massachusetts than the northern two-thirds of the Pine Tree State. I don’t think such a change would actually change anything, except that it might discourage fence sitters with little or no money from exercising their right to petition the government. This is something to consider.

Voters should think sufficiently on this issue before tossing support or opposition. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. In other words, for those seeking signatures that would more easily be targeted in northern and rural Maine, an equal number, or a more representative number of signatures, must be gathered from both regions – the door swings both ways.

And speaking of a goose and a gander, this brings me to the third item up for discussion. For the third time I remind readers I have not seen the exact language of the proposed legislation. It is my understanding that a proposal is being promoted by SAM that would prohibit public referendum items that involve “wildlife issues.”

Who is going to decide what is a “wildlife issue” to be accepted or rejected? What could possibly go wrong?

It appears to me that those in support of such a prohibition are making the assumption that they will always be in agreement with how the state, and in particular the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), manages game and wildlife. Do you have the confidence that the MDIFW will always be doing what you consider the right thing? What will happen then, if MDIFW decides that it will shift all its funds and employees to protecting piping plovers, allowing the deer herd to go to hell in a hand-basket? You try and try and try to get them to better balance their work. Even SAM has mounted a campaign to deal with issues that are important to its members, but there is no changing their minds. What then? What’s left? Presently, you could gather signatures and mount a referendum campaign for the upcoming ballot to force the changes you seek. With a ban on “wildlife issues” on referendums, this right to petition the state is gone.

It always amazes me to witness, so-called, supporters of rights, who turn around and use their right to take away a right they claim they support.

It sucks that we live in a democracy, where two wolves and a sheep can decide what’s for lunch, but it is the system that we have and our rights need to be protected in order that we can have some kind of recourse when government gets too big and out of control. I have zero faith that Maine’s government, or any other government, gives three pieces of camel dung about me and what I think is important. As I witness the changes taking place within fish and game departments, more closely resembling environmental activism, this right to petition the state on wildlife issues must remain in place.

I would NOT support a ban on referendums that involve “wildlife issues” regardless of what the definition is of “wildlife issues.”

Share

Question 3 Proponent’s Lies Revealed During Debate

Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine

To those that will be listening to the rebroadcast of the MPBN debate on Question 3 between David Trahan and Bobby Reynolds tonight at 8pm, there was a blatantly incorrect statement by Bobby Reynolds that needs correction. Link to MPBN to listen to rebroadcast:http://mainepublic.org/post/debate-ballot-question-3…

Bobby Reynolds claimed that Kittery Trading Post does free firearm transfers (background checks). This claim is absolutely FALSE. After calling Kittery Trading Post and confirming that the statement is false they sent us their rates below for background checks:

KTP Firearm transfer fees:
New Guns: $50
Used Guns: $20

Kittery Trading Post is already getting inquiries about free background checks. Bobby Reynolds and the Yes on 3 campaign owe Kittery Trading Post an apology.

In addition, Bobby Reynolds made claims that David’s statements about states having the power to establish gun registration databases, was false. Since the debate David has contacted a lawyer from Portland and confirmed that Bobby Reynolds was incorrect in this statement as well.

Maybe in the future the Yes on 3 campaign should get their facts straight.

Perhaps Maine voters should contact the Yes on 3 campaign
http://responsiblemaine.org/contact/ and tell them to keep the debates honest.

one

two

three

four

 

Share

It’s a Shame Really

I think that it is a shame that an organization like the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) is left with no money/resources to do the things a sportsman’s group should do. SAM was much bigger and better than fighting against animal rights and environmental groups, along with fascists like Michael Bloomberg. SAM used to have time and money to look after the needs of sportsmen, working with the fish and game department to make hunting, fishing, trapping, snowmobiling, ATVing, hiking, boating, wildlife management, etc. better and better all the time. No longer.

In the last ten years SAM has been zapped of all it’s resources and energy fighting against totalitarians who are convinced THEIR world would be better off by destroying the world so many Americans love and grew up with. Instead of making our outdoor recreation and sporting opportunities better, all that is left is the likeness of David and Goliath. As Goliath systematically weakens the little boy with the sling shot, until there’s nothing left to fight with, the giant, with much more powerful weapons, will prevail. Isn’t that all part of the plan?

Two anti-hunting bear referendums by hateful groups and now an evil man, who has surrounded himself with evil, brain-dead people, who are clueless as to what they are doing (most of them), want to further destroy your rights and freedom. What happened in this society that causes others to destroy that which is good, in the name of progress (that is what they call it)?

Bloomberg and others know that they have the money and power over little bothersome gnats like SAM. They will get what they want because they understand you better than you understand them.

In the meantime, SAM is hogtied, spending all it’s time fighting the fascist bullies. It is no longer a sportsman’s group but a small voice crying in a wilderness of Zombies.

What’s wrong? I just returned from a bicycle ride to Central Park (no not New York). I met perhaps a couple hundred people. I am not exaggerating when I say that not one of the people I saw was without a goddamn cellphone or some electronic device shoved in their faces – even all the Middle School children on their way to school. Zombies one and all. The world I live in, not theirs, that is the physical things around me, ain’t so bad. It’s interesting, sometimes pretty to look at. There are birds and other animals running about, and trees along with beautiful sunshine. The Zombies have left all that behind and cashed it in for their little mind-controlling toys – an instrument of destruction 100 times greater than the television set.

The fascists control those instruments of the Beast. They will convince the world that hunting, trapping and fishing are evil practices. They will convince the world that there is no need for guns. Central Government will prevail. They will control. Just keep watching your electronic device.

It’s a crying damned shame! We were told this would happen.

But don’t go look!

Share

SAM’s Executive Director Testifies Before House Subcommittee on Quimby National Monument

Condensed SAM Testimony
Delivered by David Trahan, June 1, 2016

It is SAM’s mission to defend the rights of sportsmen and firearm owners. In addition, we promote the responsible conservation of our natural resources. On several occasions, including last year, we polled our members on whether they supported the creation of a National Park for the Katahdin region of Maine, as proposed by Roxanne Quimby. Each time the answer was a resounding NO, with our last poll at 92% opposition.

Through the generations Mainers have struck a delicate balance with landowners, sharing the land for all sorts of recreational uses, like hunting, fishing, trapping, and snowmobiling. Over time, large landowners have leased land and camps to outdoor recreationists, and as a result, thousands of camps have sprung up in the wilds of Maine. During these adventures into the Maine woods, moms, dads, grandfathers, uncles, aunts, and friends learned how to hunt, fish, camp, and conserve our natural resources, and in the process built bonds that made families stronger, and men and women better citizens.

Unfortunately, that delicate balance between landowners and Mainers was threatened in the early 1990s when the radical group Restore the North Woods appeared on the scene. They proposed abandoning traditional recreation like hunting, snowmobiling, and other motorized recreation, as well as ending logging. Instead, they proposed creating a 3.2-million acre wilderness National Park surrounding Baxter State Park. The opposition to this attempt to place northern Maine in federal ownership was swift, and overwhelming.<<<Read the Rest>>>

RestoreBoston

Share

MDIFW Commissioner Opposes SAM Bill LD 1593

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife commissioner, Chandler Woodcock, submitted testimony in opposition to a Sportsman’s Alliance Bill proposed bill, LD 1593. His opposition appears based on restrictions he believes the bill will place on the Department under certain conditions that would be forced upon the MDIFW, when certain conditions exist.

While the intent of the bill is understandable, the bill does have its problems.

Share

SAM Sets Record Straight

*Editor’s Note* – Below I have posted an article found on the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine’s (SAM) Facebook page. SAM’s director, David Trahan, expresses his concern for the need to clarify certain statements made by former SAM director George Smith, in his article in the Bangor Daily News, i.e. Anti-Bear Hunters’ Lawsuit Fizzles at the Maine Supreme Court.

I have heard and read several comments about differences and issues between George Smith and SAM. Many of those comments are about what some perceive as Smith’s improper usage of claims to his previous leadership role at SAM. I think that it is unfair for anyone to think that a person should be censored from informing his readers of his previous positions. For those who read Smith, they should know that he is proud of his accomplishments while at SAM. Not all agree that his accomplishments were always in the best interest of Maine sportsmen but that is not a reason to deny a person from recalling his work and position while executive director of SAM. Let the readers decide for themselves. If Smith is intentionally trying to mislead readers to think he is still a person of authority within the SAM organization, then that is wrong and should be corrected.

According to the new executive director, David Trahan, Smith made inaccurate statements in an article written in the Bangor Daily News. It is common practice to use the Media to clarify such mistakes. This is represented by the setting straight of the record listed below.

In addition to the divide between Smith and SAM, I’m also hearing that there is bickering among the Maine sportsmen over exactly how the sportsmen should proceed in dealing with efforts to resist lawsuits and ballot referendums that are opposed to hunting, trapping, fishing and other outdoor pursuits. As of yet, I see no “bickering.” I see a learning curve – the same learning curve that I’ve witnessed in many states across the nation. What transpires and how the posturing and building of resources manifests itself into the near future, will determine a united front or a divided front.

With posturing for power and control, always come disagreements. Politics creates strange bedfellows. The will to succeed, to stop the onslaught against a way of life, needs to be strong enough to rationally work through differences, keeping the focus on the bigger picture.

Can it happen? Let’s hope.

From the SAM Facebook page:

Important-Please read and share

SAM Statement-George Smith’s Blog-Setting the Record Straight

On February 11, 2016, George Smith blogged this piece: Anti-bear hunters’ Lawsuit Fizzles at the Maine Supreme Court, in which he made false and inaccurate statements about the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and our role in the pending lawsuit. In addition, by not allowing our organization an opportunity to present our concerns about the MWCC before writing his one sided blog gave readers an unflattering impression of our organization as well as, mischaracterized our absence from the Maine Wildlife Conservation Council. In the future, we would ask him to follow the basic and professional journalism principles of presenting all facts, before writing blogs that reflect poorly on any organization.

Updated-Statement

Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine statement regarding the MWCC:

We have fielded several calls from people confused by the George Smith Blog about the pending HSUS lawsuit (Anti-bear Hunters’ Lawsuit Fizzles at the Maine Supreme Court) and the Maine Wildlife Conservation Council’s role, as well as SAM’s absence from this organization.

As you all know, the outdoor community won a major victory when we defeated the bear referendum a little over a year ago. In response to the grave threat from the Humane Society of the United States, SAM worked with several of our outdoor partners, including the Maine Professional Guides Association (MPGA), the Maine Trapper’s Association (MTA), the United States Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA), and others to create the Ballot Question Committee titled “The Maine Wildlife Conservation Council (MWCC).” SAM was responsible for completing the IRS paperwork and registering the MWCC with the Maine Ethic’s Commission. Our staff completed the necessary forms to establish the committee, created an independent Employer ID Number (EIN), and helped establish the name: Maine Wildlife Conservation Council.

When the lawsuit was filed by HSUS, SAM was fully involved in the MWCC and during that time, we raised money from SAM members that later paid bills related to the lawsuit. After the referendum was defeated, SAM agreed to release the remaining MWCC funds (several thousand dollars), and those funds were used to pay the lawyers involved in defending the lawsuit. Smith’s statement about SAM not helping with the lawsuit is completely false!

After the referendum was successfully defeated, we had a fundamental difference of opinion/disagreement with the MPGA, MTA and USSA organizations regarding whether it was necessary to continue raising money for the MWCC, as SAM is already an established organization that defends the rights of Sportsmen and Women in our state. The SAM Board felt that a continuation of the MWCC as envisioned by the MPGA, the MTA, and the USSA would be a duplication of SAM’s efforts, and the cost of hiring additional staff for MWCC would consume too many resources.

In addition, we were told by USSA’s representatives that because of the HSUS lawsuit, they would have over $100,000.00 in new legal fees and they expected the new MWCC to pay them. Given that USSA was acting as intervenors and IF&W was actually defended by the Attorney General’s Office we questioned the need to pay lawyers for work that was already being done by the AG’s office.

At that time, MWCC was proposing hiring two staffers and expenses that combined, totaled nearly $2000.00 per week, (over $100,000.00 per year) and their intention to pay anticipated additional legal fees of over $100,000.00. SAM’s priority at the time was passing a Constitutional Amendment to stop these attacks once and for all, and saving money for any new referendum that might come forward. We were also concerned that contributors to MWCC were not aware that the new MWCC was planning to use most of the money raised from contributors to pay these new legal fees and staff.

SAM’s Alternative Proposal to the MWCC Plan – Flatly Rejected

What is unknown to the public is that SAM offered our partners an alternative that would have allowed us and many other groups to participate in the MWCC or an alternative group. The alternative we proposed would have allowed each organization equal representation on an Outdoor Council, would have retained staff on a very limited basis, and used existing staff to raise money and place it in rainy day funds. The proposal as it was sent to the current MWCC leadership is at the end of this statement. The current MWCC leadership rejected this SAM proposal and decided to move forward without SAM. We will not speak to their motives, they can address why they didn’t want to accept our compromise.

Since we were unable to come to a consensus with these organizations, the Maine Wildlife Conservation Council and SAM parted ways and have continued to work together at the Legislature. Many people correctly viewed SAM as one of the key leaders of the MWCC during the referendum fight, and since very few people are aware of the fact that the MWCC is no longer associated with SAM, we want to clarify the relationship. We also feel it is important that people donating money understand who they are donating to, and how those donations will be spent.

SAM Concerns are Reflected in New MWCC Ethics Report

? According to the MWCC 2015 Campaign Finance Report, filed in January, 2016 the MWCC has raised around $120,000.00 and spent nearly $100,000.00. According to Don Kleiner, MPGA Director and leader of the MWCC, they also have an outstanding legal bill of $30,000.00. This is the link to the report:
https://secure.mainecampaignfinance.com/…/FilingAmendmentSe…
There are many Guides, sportsmen, businesses and others that want to raise money to protect hunting in the future; SAM does as well. We would gladly support an effort that uses our resources wisely and efficiently. To Accomplish this goal, we have created our own defense fund called the Friends of Maine Sportsmen and will continue to raise money for a future battle without a huge overhead.

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine remains ready to face any future referendum battles, and we are committed to working with all of our partner organizations. We appreciate all of the support we continue to receive from clubs, our members, and the public, and hope this explanation clarifies our position. Any questions should be sent to: David Trahan David.Trahan@SportsmansAllianceofMaine.org
This SAM proposal, (below) was presented to the current leaders of the MWCC just after the referendum and they rejected it.

SAM Proposal Moving Forward-Council of Outdoor Leaders

Priority-One

Hold a meeting of coalition leaders to determine whether there is support to create an entity whose sole purpose is to prepare for the next referendum or other significant threats that if successful could affect all outdoor groups. The next step would be to agree to the basic outline of the new entity, mission and structure.

Priority-Two

If it is decided to create the new entity, each organization would choose a representative and a non-profit would be formed whose role was to raise money each year and in rare cases, expend resources on issues like referendums. They would agree to a meeting schedule, (twice a year or as necessary).

Priority-Three

Each organization, represented in the non-profit would create a rainy day fund specifically designed to pay for referendums or other unique circumstances. The goal would be for each organization to commit to raising $5000 (or an amount determined by the coalition) per year for 5 years. Each account would remain under the control of the organizations, (SAM, Bow hunters, etc.). Best case scenario, within five years, each organization would have a dedicated rainy day fund for referendums. If the coalition had five members, there would be $125,000.00 in reserve held by each organization. Each year, at one of the two annual meetings, each organization would report on their fund status.

Non-Profit Role

The new non-profit would meet twice a year and their role would be simple, create a fund that accepted money to defend us against the next referendum and write by-laws to guide the new non-profit. They would create a fundraising plan with a set, yearly target determined by the leaders. For example, if they determined $50,000 per year was the goal, (or an amount determined by the coalition) within 5 years the non-profit would be in possession of $250,000.00.

In total, the member organizations would hold $125,000 in reserve and the non-profit, $250,000, for a combined total of $375,000. This amount would be easier to reach if the coalition was larger than 5 participant organizations. Pretty good start on the next referendum campaign.

I could see the non-profit hiring someone for limited work organizing fundraising activity like a summer fundraising event, (for example, golf tournament), I could also see this person responsible for calling the two yearly meetings and put together a communications plan for the non-profit members, if not, SAM can perform this role.

Below is the Structure Plan:

Non-profit-Leadership Structure-Financial Goals Five Members or More-Goal- Raise $50,000 per year-5 year plan-$250,000.00 kept in trust.

Organizational Outline

Council of Outdoor Leaders

• At least five organizations, preferably 10.
• Fundraising Goal in the Rainy Day Funds–$2,500.00-$5000.00 each year, per organization

• 5-year goal-$125,000.00.

Membership

Organizations choose representatives to serve on non-profit.
All utilization of non-profit resources would be decision of the non-profit representatives on a case by case basis and super-majority vote.
By-laws could be written to state: if the non-profit is dissolved all funds would be dispersed equally among coalition members.

Share