The Real Quail Decline

OKIEGunner

OKIEGunner

New member
I was just wondering if having three different Quail organizations (Quail Unlimited, Quail Forever & Quail Coalition, Inc) is helping or hurting the efforts to reestablish our declining quail populations.
 
From what I think Quail Forever stepped up when it felt that Quail Unlimited was going to implode. I dont know if Quail Coalition is much of a factor when compared to Quail Forever.

So in short each dollar is important if spent in the right way.
 
Kansas Bound said:
From what I think Quail Forever stepped up when it felt that Quail Unlimited was going to implode. I dont know if Quail Coalition is much of a factor when compared to Quail Forever.

So in short each dollar is important if spent in the right way.
Click to expand...

Is QU even still in business? I thought that QUWF was born out of the dissatisfaction with QU but I may be wrong.
 
Yes, QU is still running & I see they did have an annual banquet. QC is founded by the chapter from TX that initially broke ranks from QU
The QC synergy is in the TX region.
 
Last edited:
1GB,

I do not see multiple quail organizations beneficial. I will use QU as an example. QU before its financial problems had 30-40 people on the pay role. Our Membership fee’s and donations & funds raised from banquets ultimately get used for payroll. So if we have (3) organizations you can see that more money is needed for more employees, which equates to less money for habitat projects. I think you get my point.
 
OKIEGunner said:
1GB,

I do not see multiple quail organizations beneficial. I will use QU as an example. QU before its financial problems had 30-40 people on the pay role. Our Membership fee’s and donations & funds raised from banquets ultimately get used for payroll. So if we have (3) organizations you can see that more money is needed for more employees, which equates to less money for habitat projects. I think you get my point.
Click to expand...

I wrestle with this internally constantly. I support QU, Quail and Pheasants Forever, Ruffed Grouse Society,and North American Grouse Partnership. I'll call a spade a spade, what we are talking about is executive compensation and management/ operational expense. There have been times and organizations, where these costs have been questioned and rightfully so. I don't think diversity among organizations is a bad thing, allows for a variety of approaches, keeps all of them on the straight and narrow, efficient, and competing for your donation. I am troubled by executive compensation of ALL charities, churches, etc. I feel like it's a choice and should be a lifestyle calling, expecting and recieving compensation based upon similar sized "for profit" models doesn't impress me much. But I suppose it's the world we live in. I always check out ratings on Charity Navigator, or other non-profit review organizations. The tendency, is for all these organizations to become little quasi governments primarily concerned with their own survival first and the orginal mission second. In the perfect world 100% of our dollars would be used for the mission, it's not practical,and it's never happened in history, and it won't, if somewhere north of 60% of all funds are used for critical mission, depending upon size, it's all we can ask. By the way, that smokes the performance of US Humane Society in efficiency, Sara McGlaucklin, caterwalling not withstanding.
 
Last edited:
oldandnew said:
I wrestle with this internally constantly. I support QU, Quail and Pheasants Forever, Ruffed Grouse Society,and North American Grouse Partnership. I'll call a spade a spade, what we are talking about is executive compensation and management/ operational expense. There have been times and organizations, where these costs have been questioned and rightfully so. I don't think diversity among organizations is a bad thing, allows for a variety of approaches, keeps all of them on the straight and narrow, efficient, and competing for your donation. I am troubled by executive compensation of ALL charities, churches, etc. I feel like it's a choice and should be a lifestyle calling, expecting and recieving compensation based upon similar sized "for profit" models doesn't impress me much. But I suppose it's the world we live in. I always check out ratings on Charity Navigator, or other non-profit review organizations. The tendency, is for all these organizations to become little quasi governments primarily concerned with their own survival first and the orginal mission second. In the perfect world 100% of our dollars would be used for the mission, it's not practical,and it's never happened in history, and it won't, if somewhere north of 60% of all funds are used for critical mission, depending upon size, it's all we can ask. By the way, that smokes the performance of US Humane Society in efficiency, Sara McGlaucklin, caterwalling not withstanding.
Click to expand...

You know O&N, I used to have the same attitude as you towards non profit entities and their compentsation. That is untill I started working for one a few years ago. I have noticed that those that have only a " calling " for their field don't always have the tools and abilities to preform their job well. Take our CEO for example. I am sure he is compensated better than the other 4 directors in the housing non profits we deal with in Kansas City. But guess what, we are the most sucessfull, stretch our dolllars the farthest, and generally put out the best product in the city. He also works about 80 hrs a week. We are also the first in line when the city, Hud, or Fannie Mae needs a favor from a non-profit in this city. I guess what I am saying is most times you get what you pay for. You certainly have to pay for talent. I am also compensated better than other construction mgrs. in the non-profit world. But I also run lean jobs, and a lot of them. We are often featured in Hud publications and news programs as the way to do it. We hire talented people first, then people with a passion for the job. Sometimes the passion can cloud reality. Just a thought.
 
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. my goal is to make each one of us vigilante and informed. Here's a small fact, make of it what you will. DU, arguablly the best known and easily the most successful hunter/wildlife organization, with revenues at least 5 times the size of PF, pays it's president, roughly the same amount as PF. However, DU has over 300 people on staff who earn in excess of $50,000 per year, many well over $100.000. Not including Don Young, asst vice president who earns over $560,000.00. At a time when revenues and donations have fallen off. You tell me?
 
If you really have a passion to do habitat work, do you or should you need monetary compensation? I'm sure the hours worked are very high with a seemingly never ending workload but shouldn't we try to spread the workload among more folks then to lay the majority of it on a select few?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top