Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting RMEF Press Release - Wolf Delisting

Elk Foundation Voices Support for Wolf Management


MISSOULA, Mont.�The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service this week hopes to remove wolves from endangered species lists in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. But with anti-hunting emotions and lawsuits threatening to forestall sound conservation science, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is reaffirming its longstanding support of hunter-based wolf management.

Wolf populations are now well above federal recovery goals and increasing.

The time has come to manage wolves like other game animals, says Elk Foundation President David Allen.

�Long before anyone dreamed of an Endangered Species Act, hunters were restoring and managing elk, mule deer, whitetails, wild turkeys, black bears, bighorn sheep, mountain lions, mountain goats and a host of other wildlife. In fact, it was hunter-funded big-game populations that made wolf recovery possible. You�d think the people who argued longest and loudest to bring wolves back would be slapping backs and saying thanks. Instead, they�re filing lawsuits,� said Allen.

Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said, �We strongly support hunting wolves. Look at the success we�ve had with hunting mountain lions and maintaining strong lion populations. There is no reason wolf management cannot be just as successful.�

Regulated hunting has never reduced any species to threatened levels. It is, however, the premier tool for balancing game populations within carrying capacities of habitat as well as public tolerances. Allen said wolves in certain areas have exceeded those tolerances.

Allen urged Elk Foundation members to support hunter-based wolf management controlled by respective state wildlife agencies, saying, �I hope all of our members will voice their support for de-listing wolves as prescribed by US. Fish and Wildlife Service, and continue to show how hunters lead the wildlife conservation process.�


About the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Founded in 1984 and headquartered in Missoula, Mont., the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is a nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat. The Elk Foundation and its partners have permanently protected or enhanced over 5.2 million acres, a land area larger than Connecticut, Delaware and District of Columbia combined. More than 500,000 acres previously closed to public access are now open for hunting, fishing and other recreation. To help protect wild elk country or learn more about the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, visit www.elkfoundation.org or call 800-CALL-ELK.



The anti's have responded http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/03/28/news/local/news03.txt

Good for RMEF.

The anti's are not about wildlife per se; they are about who controls public resources. They are the same people and the same ideology that seeks gun control -- which also is not about guns; but rather is about control.

This issue is creating a bright line dividing those who care about wildlife and wild lands from those who care about imposing their "enlightened" vision of the universe on the rest of us.

DN

The Anti's are mounting a politcal campaign in Alaska again too. There will be an issue on the ballot this fall, so get out and vote it down! Just like the anti-bear baiting law that was put down a couple years ago. Lots of money is need to fight their campaign so if you want to help out go to the fundraisers coming up soon and buy raffle tickets and donated items to support our cause to continue our predator control here in Alaska.

I'm on Eddie's mailing list...and SCI's...and on and on...

I do my part...

DN

Finally a RMEF president that will take a position....for hunting.

Curious what you think is good. The fact that they sat on the sidelines for years doing nothing or the fact that they hop on board after it is settled? I do wonder if it is because of the new president or was it due to kissing some butt to get back some membership that might have left unhappy at RMEF for taking no stance for the last several years.

I don't want to get started on the RMEF. That organization has been all about exclusive access to private ranches for its officers for years. No DIY public land hunts for those dudes. Where do you think all those wonderful 1/2 hour episodes were made?

Now they get on the band wagon. Too little too late. My membership went by the boards years ago.

I'm still a RMEF Life Member but have not been active the past few years because of the leadership. If they get back to what they started with....I'll get involved again. I won't say it's too late if they get back to the roots of the four founders.

This is directed more to this thread in general and not at you Hunt..........

The mandate and mission statement of the RMEF from the beginning has been to raise money for habitat improvement, habitat acquisition, and conservation education--primarily with elk in mind.

The mandate--at the insistence of the founding members--was NOT to become a political advocacy group.

They have not always been successful at keeping themselves clean and pristine on a few occasions when it comes to controversial issues, but supporting wildlife is well within the original mandate--opposing wolves would not be supporting wildlife............

Note: A simple statement of support for a species of wildlife is different than politically active lobbying or being involved in legal action.

The RMEF was NEVER intended to be the same kind of politically active organization as say, the Sierra Club or NRA.



Casey

Well said.

The Elk Foundation position is that game animals should be managed by the states they live in. THAT was what the news release was about...not feeding anyone's pro- or anti- wolf sentiments.

I too am a life member, and have been a member since 1986. No organization composed of human beings could ever hope to meet all of our expectations all of the time -- and anyone who demands that of anyone or any organization is likely to be pretty lonely. The RMEF, however, has done and continues to do great work for wildlife and wildlife habitat, and not just elk.

Even if they don't always make me 100% happy all the time... . Thank God my wife isn't as picky as some of the folks here are... .

Dennis

Great news for elk hunters. Now I can go back to wearing boots and normal clothes instead of camo and track shoes if I should happen to get a shot at one of those "Large Coyotes"............

Hiwallman

If you don't like the RMEF, just point me to the organization that is more effective in putting money on the ground for elk and elk habitat. Some guys think the Foundation should be all about protecting their hunt. This has never been the Foundation's position, not since it before it started in Troy. It has always been about what's best for the species, not what's best for the hunters.

Sure, the Foundation has had some mediocre CEOs... which is mostly the fault of the Board. The new guy seems like he's off on the right foot. As for the wolf delisting, the Foundation position is consistent. The data show that wolves have established and no longer need ESA protection... so they should be managed by the states like any other game animal. Like it or not, there's also a fair amount of smoke on both sides of the wolf issues. You listen to some ranchers and hunters, there is a wolf hiding behind every tree. You listen to some tree huggers, and every animal should be on the ES list. When it comes to wildlife, we need to take the emotion out of the public policy discussion and replace it with science. Otherwise, hunting and wildlife management will never rise above which constituency can muster the most votes.

Well put Hamp.......



Casey

RMEF climbed in bed with the anti's and many of us left because of it. The Constitution means more to me than Elk ever will, and that's saying a lot because I love elk.

I am really not convinced we need more elk or elk habitat. There are great opportunities out there for hard working hunters with realistic expectaations, and there will never be enough game for the other type.

On the other hand there is way too much land in government and not for profit groups hands.

We may not need more, but we sure as hell need to keep what we've got. And the best way to keep the land accessible for the common man is for the government to hold on to it. Sad but true.

Common men own and access privately owned land every day.

The government held lands are the worst maintained, worst managed, and least productive of all habitats. You have bought into a bill of goods that really isn't reflective of the reality on the ground.

Ask yourself if you want to public land hunt, or gain access to private land for deer season this year.

Depends, am I hunting the USFS/BLM lands on the Kaibab, the Paunsaguant, or the Henry Mountains or am I hunting Joe Bob's hayfield?

OK, I asked myself the question. And realized I already answered it nine years ago. Voted with my feet. Nine years ago I lived in a state with some of the biggest deer in the country and almost no public land that's worth hunting(Texas). You pay a few to more than several thousand bucks for the privilege to hunt, and you get your deer almost without fail. The more you pay the bigger the deer. Very sporty, especially if you're willing to pay $10,000 or so. Big horns to hang on the wall.

Am I dumping on Texas-style hunting here? No, just answering your question. I still have friends who let me (and my son) hunt their land for free. My 15 year-old son and I recently went down, he killed two hogs and missed a hurried shot at maybe the biggest whitetail buck he'll ever get a chance at. We both had a great time.

But we still prefer to hunt public land, on foot, out of a backpack. Not everyone is able or willing to hunt that way, but it ain't money that "separates the men from the boys," it's the willingness to keep yourself in good physical condition and the willingness to work for your hunt. If you really like to hunt, you're willing to work for it.

We hunt public land exclusively in Colorado, for elk and deer. It's how we like to hunt--everyone has an equal chance at the elk and deer we hunt, not just a privileged few who own land or can afford private-land hunting. Actually, we can afford it too, we just prefer not to pay for it. Because we don't have to.

I generally get my elk every year, with a muzzleloader. Haven't hunted private land since I've been here; there's no need to because we have plenty of National Forest. When I lived in Virginia 18 years ago, I hunted public land too. The only whitetail buck I ever had mounted came from the George Washington National Forest. I worked for that buck, went in several miles, had some of the best hunting anywhere.

You say that government lands are the "worst maintained?" "Least productive?" I find that concept laughable. If you want "productive" plant hay and raise beef. What are we talking here, food plots? Feeders? Gravel roads so you can drive in an lift your kill into the truck with a hoist?

The lands I like to hunt are not maintained at all. Except maybe they saw the logs off the "no motorized vehicles allowed" trails every year or two, maybe not. It's OK if they don't, I can just step on over 'em.

Who's bought into a bill of goods here? You don't know how productive public land can be because you probably never hunted the good spots. All my friends here hunt public land, and they all do very well. It just takes some effort. Reality on the ground? They put elk and deer on the ground, public ground. Some of it conserved by the Elk Foundation.

Am I saying everyone should hunt public land, on foot, like we do? No, just answering your question.

I get my animals on public land e ery year. I just don't decieve myself about government management. Plus, to go to the good spots the costs are as high as private land. And, I have never hired a guide or paid a trespass fee.

If the RMEF wasn't in bed with the land 7 power grabbing eco-zelots I would be back in a heart beat, but they made a decission to support the radical fringe, and I can't support that decission with my dollars.