Martin Posted July 22, 2015 Author Share Posted July 22, 2015 If Wally had given us $250,000 - we'd already be done with the deed. Why expand to other areas if you are sitting on the motherlode of Woodapes? Why dilute your resources? But as it sits, we scrape by with member dues and an occasional donation of very little. Why then go to all of the expense (additonal tax reporting alone would be considerable) of becoming a 501c3 non-profit? Only reason I can think of, if your not getting donations, is to make members camping trips tax deductible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Why expand to other areas if you are sitting on the motherlode of Woodapes? Why dilute your resources? We haven't diluted our resources in Area X. The reason we "expanded" was to include the states we currently have members in. We want to encourage sighting reports to come in from those states so they can be investigated. It in no way impacts the resources available to Area X. Martin stated: Why then go to all of the expense (additonal tax reporting alone would be considerable) of becoming a 501c3 non-profit? Only reason I can think of, if your not getting donations, is to make members camping trips tax deductible... It’s neither expensive nor time consuming to be a 501c3. Several groups are 501c3 - I sit on the Board of one. The reason why we did it was to separate ourselves from other groups like the BFRO that were profiting from bigfooting by charging people for expeditions, selling merchandise, and generally not accountable to their members. The BFRO doesn't have any rules - its a whim on who becomes a member and when they are kicked out. A 501c3 has to have a purpose (like for education), bylaws, a Board of Directors, membership is voted on, the BOD is voted on and serve terms, there are regular meetings, no one can make a profit, etc. There are a host of very good reasons to be a 501c3. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 The reason why we did it was to separate ourselves from other groups like the BFRO that were profiting from bigfooting by charging people for expeditions, selling merchandise, and generally not accountable to their members. The BFRO doesn't have any rules - its a whim on who becomes a member and when they are kicked out. That's always been one of my main beefs with the BFRO. It used to be a great group filled with the who's who of this subject, including people like yourself, and then the mass exodus happened and it all went to crap. The NAWAC on the other hand is doing everything right in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted July 23, 2015 Author Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) .......?.. It’s neither expensive nor time consuming to be a 501c3........ ....... A 501c3 has to have a purpose (like for education), bylaws, a Board of Directors, membership is voted on, the BOD is voted on and serve terms, there are regular meetings, no one can make a profit, etc. Easy as.....Tax deductible woods and wildmen adventures.... Edited July 23, 2015 by Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 ...which are doing more for science than, um...you lately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted July 24, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted July 24, 2015 I have no issues with the BFRO membership policies or charging. I do have issues with field techniques most members use. I even know and like some members. My problem is their vetting of sighting reports. When vanilla reports (not paranormal) are somehow excluded from their data base and never investigated, and no reason anyone comes up with makes sense, I really wonder about the organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted July 24, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2015 When vanilla reports Swwa What do you consider vanilla reports ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted July 24, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) Footprint reports, vocalizations, close encounter vocalizatioss, bipedal footsteps through heavy undergrowth approaching, great thud, rapid warning knocks, growl, and the apparently uninteresting fact I got a picture of a juvenile BF. Not all in one encounter but not interesting enough to investigate or be entered into the BFRO data base. But now that I have been critical of the organization I am probably on some bad person list. Edited July 24, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted July 24, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2015 couple questions: 1) Did you file a report via their online form or just email / talk to someone? 2) If you filed the report online, what makes you think it was not "taken"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted July 26, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted July 26, 2015 (edited) I filed on line. If they were taken they were not investigated nor are they in the data base. The last Clark County WA report of any category as of this morning is Aug 2003, 7 years before my first encounter. I know they got them because a "Finding Bigfoot" producer contacted me about one of the reports. If they vet or reject reports without any investigation the BFRO data base is not a data base but a list of preferred reading of selected topics. My purpose for filing the report at all is to get data into the data base. My reports are not in any public data base. Edited July 26, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 We haven't diluted our resources in Area X. The reason we "expanded" was to include the states we currently have members in. We want to encourage sighting reports to come in from those states so they can be investigated. It in no way impacts the resources available to Area X. Martin stated: Why then go to all of the expense (additonal tax reporting alone would be considerable) of becoming a 501c3 non-profit? Only reason I can think of, if your not getting donations, is to make members camping trips tax deductible... It’s neither expensive nor time consuming to be a 501c3. Several groups are 501c3 - I sit on the Board of one. The reason why we did it was to separate ourselves from other groups like the BFRO that were profiting from bigfooting by charging people for expeditions, selling merchandise, and generally not accountable to their members. The BFRO doesn't have any rules - its a whim on who becomes a member and when they are kicked out. A 501c3 has to have a purpose (like for education), bylaws, a Board of Directors, membership is voted on, the BOD is voted on and serve terms, there are regular meetings, no one can make a profit, etc. There are a host of very good reasons to be a 501c3. http://woodape.org/index.php/about-us Looks like the donation/grant avenue(s) are the primary source of revenue. Any idea on how much has been taken in, so far? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 ^ Yeap $5,000,000 in 1993 http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/franzoni.htm I have heard $250,000 for the drones and a total of around $400,000 for Meldrum in total. Est. $250,000 to the BFRO from Wally Unconfirmed est. of same for NAWAC 10's of millions have been spent on bigfoot research..... not even one high res. picture. Martin, how much of that 5 million was spent on attempting to debunk the PGF (which they were unable to do)? It is not accurate to believe that the entire 5 million was spent on field attempts to acquire proof. http://woodape.org/index.php/about-us Looks like the donation/grant avenue(s) are the primary source of revenue. Any idea on how much has been taken in, so far? That is all public record. You can request that info from the NAWAC board or officers directly. While Bigfoot Encounters is a valuable repository of articles, relying on that particular article as "proof" that Byrne got paid $ 5,000,000 is sorely misplaced. Based on the same guy's word, we can also say that 5 million was spent on debunking the PGF and it wasn't proven to be fake. (From the article linked). Should we only consider money devoted to those looking for BF? How about all the animal population surveys already done over the last couple centuries? Animal population surveys don't count what they think are humans on the ground. 5 million for one project in 1993 alone.. to debunk the PGF...of which it didn't do. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 I truly don't know the answer to your questions. I think Glickman got approx $400k to study the film. That's a lot of cheddar no matter how you break it down. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMBigfoot Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Here's your chance to help fund the search for bigfoot. http://www.oregonlive.com/window-shop/index.ssf/2016/09/bigfoot_gofundme.html#incart_river_home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted September 15, 2016 BFF Patron Share Posted September 15, 2016 I know him and his wife and they have grandious plans beyond the voyage. They also want to establish a BF museum that they expect to cost in the tens of millions of other people's money and chair the board of directors of that foundation. There is more than one way to fund your retirement and using other people's money seems best to them. If the P/G film did not prove BF I wonder how they think FLIR or drone video will? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts