Pheasants Forever- SCAM or do they help upland hunters?

[SDinWI]

Nature Conservancy owns a lot of land - it's not an issue for them.

He claims he's a CPA - I can claim I'm a brain surgeon -

As to my comments on the board - I am genuinely applauding them for having some diversity (A black man) and some women on the board -- the makeup in 2019 -2020 was not the case and was all white and mainly 50-60 yrs old if I recall.

Either way - with the revitalization of this thread - there are a great # of us that do not believe in PF's mission -- some of you do - it's all good.

All I can say is if they would focus on keeping and buying land or anything in general that permanently would open up bird hunting access where there are still wild birds - then I'd be behind them 1000% - - I do not see that as their mission and the mission mostly seems to be lip service.

Lol “claims he’s a CPA”. You know your argument is solid when you resort to that ? I think I’ve made it clear I know my stuff. I’m not going to give you my license #. You made that a point of your reasoning - that the financials show PF is “bad”, so now you’re questioning my credibility since you can’t tell me my findings are wrong.

The nature conservancy has a whole different organizational purpose - it is to buy environmentally sensitive land for conservation and then transfer it to other ownership, but they assume they’ll hold it forever. They buy first and figure out who to partner with later. That’s a very top down, centralized approach. That can get people thinking that the big wigs make the decisions which would be true. PF operates as an organization that concerns itself with the acres impacted, not acres owned. Think about it, CRP and other programs work with active farmers. If they can convince several farmers to put in even 5-10 acres of CRP, that’s a whole lot easier and less expensive than buying a 50 acre parcel. And I think there’s a change in people’s minds from dollars going toward immediate habitat needs to dollars going toward potential acquisitions at a higher level that they won’t have a say in. There’s a lot more financial risk too that the eventual sale to another party will not happen or be delayed with the nature conservancy approach and then the org would be out of luck and members would complain. The member base for PF is the weekend hunter, the hunts when he has time off guy, the common man. The nature conservancy base is high net worth individuals and institutions.

I get that you’re back-handedly applauding the board changes. You just “had” to throw a slight dig at the past board is all I’m saying.

 

[gim]

he shoots a .410, and shoots it well

Tim Walz uses his personal
Beretta A400 Xcel semi-automatic 12-gauge shotgun for pheasant hunting.
Key details about the shotgun:

• Model: Beretta A400 Xcel Sporting.
• Gauge: 12-gauge.
• Ammunition: He uses non-toxic bismuth three-inch shells with number five bird shot, which are more environmentally friendly than traditional lead alternatives.
• Features: Walz mentioned he specifically chose this model, which is designed for shooting sporting clays, because it is heavier than a pure hunting gun and features a hydraulic damper in the stock to reduce recoil, making it more comfortable to shoot as he has gotten older.

 

[benelli-banger]

Tim Walz uses his personal
Beretta A400 Xcel semi-automatic 12-gauge shotgun for pheasant hunting.
Key details about the shotgun:

• Model: Beretta A400 Xcel Sporting.
• Gauge: 12-gauge.
• Ammunition: He uses non-toxic bismuth three-inch shells with number five bird shot, which are more environmentally friendly than traditional lead alternatives.
• Features: Walz mentioned he specifically chose this model, which is designed for shooting sporting clays, because it is heavier than a pure hunting gun and features a hydraulic damper in the stock to reduce recoil, making it more comfortable to shoot as he has gotten older.

But he could flourish afield with a .410…no doubt about it…

 

[Chestle]

Pretty sure Walz has qualified as Expert on pheasant with a 28

 

[KsHusker]

I think if the Catholic Church is still alive, PF will survive, too…I was being bombastic and facetious in my earlier claims …maybe PF is guilty of something…I have no idea and could care less…this whole thread is interesting and entertaining and cements in my feeble mind that the truly important things will never have consensus and the USA is doomed. That I really do mean, and really do believe. National debt is over $38,000,000,000,000 and before long 100% of our revenue will be used to service interest on the debt, and we’ll have nary a penny to spend on anything else. May seem a long ways away, but it’s not. And even at 50% of revenue needed for just interest on the debt, lots of other important things will be pushed aside. Go hunting…do something fun…we’re living in a fantasy world…both parties are, this isn’t pointing fingers at one party or another. We’re phucked…mainly because nobody seems to care. When Ross Perot had his national debt chart in 1992, we were at $2,000,000,000,000 in debt. We’ll be at 40 trillion quickly…then 50 trillion. We’re phucked. Nobody seems to care. It’s gonna bring us down….your kids and grandkids are phucked….we’re gonna hit $1,000,000,000,000 in annual interest expenditures any moment now…and it’s gonna double in a decade…I think the likelihood of interest rates going back to zero during economic crises is zilch…creditors will demand a rate commensurate with the risk…we’re likely in a 2.5%-5% range, or higher…watch out. Our “new normal” is taking in about 5 trillion annually, and spending about 7 trillion, tacking an extra 2 trillion on to the debt annually. A decade, or 15 years ago, it was normal to add 300, 400 billion on to the national debt annually…”budget deficit”…we’re pushing 2 trillion annually in years WITHOUT a war, or crisis, or pandemic…give us one of them, we’ll jump that year’s deficit to 4 or 5 trillion…we’ll be at 50 trillion before we know it….

I'm not sure what this has to do with PF - ha -- but definitely agree --- I bring this up in a business owner peer group im in and told I'm a debbie downer in so many words.

We're in for some sort of financial reset - but that's for another thread and I'd like to time leaving the US and out of dollars before that happens if I can.

 

[KsHusker]

Lol “claims he’s a CPA”. You know your argument is solid when you resort to that ? I think I’ve made it clear I know my stuff. I’m not going to give you my license #. You made that a point of your reasoning - that the financials show PF is “bad”, so now you’re questioning my credibility since you can’t tell me my findings are wrong.

The nature conservancy has a whole different organizational purpose - it is to buy environmentally sensitive land for conservation and then transfer it to other ownership, but they assume they’ll hold it forever. They buy first and figure out who to partner with later. That’s a very top down, centralized approach. That can get people thinking that the big wigs make the decisions which would be true. PF operates as an organization that concerns itself with the acres impacted, not acres owned. Think about it, CRP and other programs work with active farmers. If they can convince several farmers to put in even 5-10 acres of CRP, that’s a whole lot easier and less expensive than buying a 50 acre parcel. And I think there’s a change in people’s minds from dollars going toward immediate habitat needs to dollars going toward potential acquisitions at a higher level that they won’t have a say in. There’s a lot more financial risk too that the eventual sale to another party will not happen or be delayed with the nature conservancy approach and then the org would be out of luck and members would complain. The member base for PF is the weekend hunter, the hunts when he has time off guy, the common man. The nature conservancy base is high net worth individuals and institutions.

I get that you’re back-handedly applauding the board changes. You just “had” to throw a slight dig at the past board is all I’m saying.

We can agree to disagree -- I believe it would be mind blowing the amount of land that could function agriculturally and be added to or opened up to hunting for upland birds if there was a shift in the focus. I digress.

As to the financials - you are correct in that they are reporting nothing for any additional compensation - I simply would not be surprised if there is another entity out there that could be providing compensation - or like anything else - deals made in the boardrooms benefit friends or family -- ie consultancy fees etc. In our state our local govt's do the same thing through things such as "Go Wichita" or "GO Topeka" where non profits are set up and sales tax money is funnelled there for a private board to do with as they wish, spend it on consultants, or back to local wealthy influential business owners etc. I could see the exact same type of corruption happening at PF.

As to pay - you left one thing out -- if they are only paying the gal $300k in today's money they are effectively paying her $190k or so per year in 2019 dollars if adjusted for inflation. In 2019 when this thread was started, the 2019 CEO salary inflation adjusted for 2025 would be roughly $580k. (Shadowstats inflation figures per year used -- not the false govt published ones).

As to getting back to the financials - IMO it is a lot of smoke an mirrors - my understanding is a good portion of the money they list on their tax return and income statements is money that is funneled through the farm bill (our tax money) for habitat/conservation programs - and PF is simply helping to administer the program and takes a cut of the proceeds -- that is best explanation I can give and how a few programs from those involved in them have explained how the money moves. I take issue with the "false" credit they take for the habitat when imo they are not directly responsible.


As to Nature Conservancy land in KS - they've had large tracts in their name for decades at this point in a couple of places. Again - the only thing I struggle with on them is not making the lands very accessible or accessible at all (in KS) to hunting.

 

[Obi_Wan]

We can agree to disagree -- I believe it would be mind blowing the amount of land that could function agriculturally and be added to or opened up to hunting for upland birds if there was a shift in the focus. I digress.

As to the financials - you are correct in that they are reporting nothing for any additional compensation - I simply would not be surprised if there is another entity out there that could be providing compensation - or like anything else - deals made in the boardrooms benefit friends or family -- ie consultancy fees etc. In our state our local govt's do the same thing through things such as "Go Wichita" or "GO Topeka" where non profits are set up and sales tax money is funnelled there for a private board to do with as they wish, spend it on consultants, or back to local wealthy influential business owners etc. I could see the exact same type of corruption happening at PF.

As to pay - you left one thing out -- if they are only paying the gal $300k in today's money they are effectively paying her $190k or so per year in 2019 dollars if adjusted for inflation. In 2019 when this thread was started, the 2019 CEO salary inflation adjusted for 2025 would be roughly $580k. (Shadowstats inflation figures per year used -- not the false govt published ones).

As to getting back to the financials - IMO it is a lot of smoke an mirrors - my understanding is a good portion of the money they list on their tax return and income statements is money that is funneled through the farm bill (our tax money) for habitat/conservation programs - and PF is simply helping to administer the program and takes a cut of the proceeds -- that is best explanation I can give and how a few programs from those involved in them have explained how the money moves. I take issue with the "false" credit they take for the habitat when imo they are not directly responsible.


As to Nature Conservancy land in KS - they've had large tracts in their name for decades at this point in a couple of places. Again - the only thing I struggle with on them is not making the lands very accessible or accessible at all (in KS) to hunting.

Not sure I understand this. Are you saying privately owned land or land owned by PF or conservancy could be used agriculturally and opened to the public (I presume) for hunting. Please note, I’m not disagreeing, just trying to understand.

 

[KsHusker]

Not sure I understand this. Are you saying privately owned land or land owned by PF or conservancy could be used agriculturally and opened to the public (I presume) for hunting. Please note, I’m not disagreeing, just trying to understand.

To clarify my statement --

Nature Conservancy (at least most of what I'm aware of the lands they own in KS) - have working ranches.farmland that is actively involved in producing food - and also supporting nature.

So my point was - imagine if PF were to take a similar approach or perhaps buy 50 year or 99 year easements or even permanently take title to land such as CRP Corners -- or a marshy swamp that will never produce anything and then enroll these lands in programs such as KS WIHA program -- other states have something similar. Or rangelands such as the one that I spoke of and was donated to them all those years ago -- it could have continued to have cattle graze on it while benefitting hunters by increasing access.

If there is not a way to increase involvement and access to hunters we are going to slowly wither and die on the vine. The present path is not a good one long term. (Continued loss of habitat - farming practices not conducive to wildlife or mother nature, which leads to loss of many animals including upland game -- I could go on - it's a death spiral.)

 

[Obi_Wan]

To clarify my statement --

Nature Conservancy (at least most of what I'm aware of the lands they own in KS) - have working ranches.farmland that is actively involved in producing food - and also supporting nature.

So my point was - imagine if PF were to take a similar approach or perhaps buy 50 year or 99 year easements or even permanently take title to land such as CRP Corners -- or a marshy swamp that will never produce anything and then enroll these lands in programs such as KS WIHA program -- other states have something similar. Or rangelands such as the one that I spoke of and was donated to them all those years ago -- it could have continued to have cattle graze on it while benefitting hunters by increasing access.

If there is not a way to increase involvement and access to hunters we are going to slowly wither and die on the vine. The present path is not a good one long term. (Continued loss of habitat - farming practices not conducive to wildlife or mother nature, which leads to loss of many animals including upland game -- I could go on - it's a death spiral.)

Thanks. Its confusing to me because around here the conservancy is not seen in a good light or as a group that is friendly to hunting or fishing. They bought up several acres of land with a river running through it for the sole purposed of re-routing the river back to its “natural course”. Over the course of, probably, hundreds of years a small river had moved from the middle of a flat piece of bottom land to the side of the mountain. Probably 200 feet or so. They bought it up and went in with heavy equipment and dozed out a bunch of trees and recut the river bottom an put a berm up with the dirt. Supposedly planning on making the bottom public use, but it stays so wet, its useless to camp or get a car in there. They planted some trees along the new banks, just to have many of them wash away with the first big rain that flooded the entire bottom land anyway. Most people see them as a bunch of city folks with no idea how nature really works.

 

[That1uncle1776]

Are you Goose’s son?

Nephew.. I think

 

[Goosemaster]

I don't know much about pheasants forever, but I do know that I've been a member of ducks unlimited for a long long time, and it's a great organization.