· Public charity
American Sportfishing Association
To guide, educate and assist its members, and to sponsor and promote programs, activities, and legislation in the interest of sportfishing and improved fishery resources.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 6 grants below total $151,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $158,000 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $7,000 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $13k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $89k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CENTER FOR SPORTFISHING POLICY | $50,000 |
| OUTDOOR RECREATION ROUNDTABLE | $35,000 |
| CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMAN FOUNDATION | $28,500 |
| THEORDORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP | $25,000 |
| FISH & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA | $7,500 |
| WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE | $5,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 96% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +45% since the first grant, against -9% for the ones you funded once.
10 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- CFCENTER FOR SPORTFISHING POLICY7× · 2017–2024 · $300k · revenue +45%
- CSCONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN'S FOUNDATION7× · 2017–2024 · $156k · revenue +20%
- ARAMERICAN RECREATION COALITION6× · 2018–2024 · $125k · revenue +75%
Funded once
- FFFISHAMERICA FOUNDATIONone grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue -9%
- CCCOASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATIONgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue +79%
- FSFLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITYone grant, 2017 · $8k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The coalition to protect michigan resources's mission is to be a strong voice for the equitable co-management of michigan's fisheries, with both the great lakes and inland lakes and streams, to insure that conservation principles remain in…
The montana wildlife federation is a statewide conservation organization dedicated to protecting wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public access for outdoor recreation.
Arizona Wildlife Federation's purpose is to promote and encourage the conservation, propagation, development and management of fish, game and other wildlife; to promote and encourage the wise use, conservation and restoration of waters,…
To sustain, restore, and enhance the nation's fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats.
To guide, educate and assist its members, and to sponsor and promote programs, activities, and legislation in the interest of sportfishing and improved fishery resources.
To protect right of jurisdiction of the midwestern states over their wildlife resources on public and private lands
The mission of the pfsc is to protect and promote hunting, fishing, trapping and realted sportsmen's rights and privileges, to secure and defend our 2nd amendment rights as guaranteed by the constitution of the united states of america; to…
Advocation and education about protecting wildlife and wildlife habitats.
RECOGNIZING THAT WITH PRIVILEGE COMES RESPONSIBILITY, THE MISSION OF THE SPORTFISHING CONSERVANCY IS TO EMPOWER SPORTSMEN TO FULFILL AND CELEBRATE THEIR COMMITMENT TO THEIR SPORT AND TO REAL WORLD CONSERVATION. To bring about change in…
Backcountry hunters & anglers seeks to ensure north america's outdoor heritage of hunting and fishing in a natural setting, through education and work on behalf of wild public lands and waters.
To improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation and the most unlike its peers is National Association of Charterboat Operators Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 13 of the 14 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds CENTER FOR SPORTFISHING POLICY ↗
- Who funds CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN'S FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN RECREATION COALITION ↗
- Who funds RECREATIONAL BOATING AND FISHING FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP INC ↗
- Who funds RECREATION VEHICLE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds FISHAMERICA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FISH & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA I ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports ↗
- Who funds COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds National Association of Charterboat Operators Inc ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: National Marine Manufacturers Association · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Cabelas Outdoor Fund · Bass Pro Shops & Cabelas Outdoor Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization American Sportfishing Association funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Wildlife Management Institute Inc — 100% of income from government
- Fish & Wildlife Foundation of Florida I — 1% of income from government
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.