Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game RMEF --Good or Bad

I hope they are good as they are willed 50% of my estate. I did specify that what they received can only be used for public land purchases. I think it is critical that such organizations provide lands with hunting opportunities to future generations.

You guys need to pay closer attention.
RMEF went badly, badly Green a few years ago and still is off the reservation as far as protecting the rights of its regular members.
One small example is RMEF's initial membership in Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance. TRCA was founded with a grant from the Pew Trust to Wildlife Forever, the "nonprofit" lobbying arm of the North American Hunting Club. The other two member groups were Trout Unlimited and the Izaak Walton League, a couple of the 'greenest' conservation (as opposed to environmental) groups.
TRCA existed primarily to shill for the Clinton (remember him, that great sportsman) Roadless Initiative.
TRCA was created because there is a huge power vacuum in the sporting arena. Most hook and bullet groups are single species (RMEF, TU, DU, PF, MDF) or local rod and gun clubs. There's no "umbrella" group besides NRA...which was critical of the roadless initiative, by the way...and maybe SCI.
The roadless initiative never got any significant support from hook and bulleteers, a huge failing that underscored the fact that most real conservationists won't have a thing to do with the sort of radical Greens that supported the roadless proposal.
The hook here is that Pew Trust was, through National Audubon, a huge funder of the political spin campaign to get the roadless thing through -- to the tune of at least 9.7 million dollars.
I don't think the Pew people got rich (4.3 billion) by being stupid. They probably analyzed their fiasco, the reasons for their flop, and -- depending on how the electoral process goes then next few years, Pew is hoping to split the hunting and fishing community into two factions...the purists and the regulars.
So now, TRCA has morphed into a Partnership, with a lot of those rich dudes mentioned above on the board of directors.
TRCP is now a Trout Unlimited project, working against ORV's, oil and gas drilling in the West, wetlands, and trying to lock up the Tongass and royally screw Southeast Alaska's economic foundations. The biggest funder? Still Pew.
RMEF is still a member group. TRCP's spin guy in Montana is a former RMEF staffer who works for TU. Coincidence? Nah.
Thing is, guys, if TRCP is eventually successful at splitting the sporting fraternity, or at least coopting part of it along regional lines (TRCP is recruiting huge in the East and Midwest, where Pew's role is not well-known as it is in the West)...well, can you imagine what happens if the warring factions are NRA members, and the sort of squabbling that will cause there?
Never mind if purists and regular guys start fighting within the sport....
So, as far as I'm concerned, RMEF has left its roots.

Any suggestions as to which groups we should support that don't have these ties? I'm not trying to be a smart-a$$, I'm genuinely curious. I'm more interested in groups that are working to keep habitat if that helps any. Thanks for the info.

I would like to know the answer to that as well. I get no benefit from the RMEF. I am not a member and I have never been to any of their shows or meetings. I just want to know that what I donate and leave is going to go to purchase lands where the average joe can go hunt.

They turned me into a newt!








I got better....



Sorry, just foolin' around... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> Been waiting for a chance to use old Newt, here...
I think RMEF is all right, by and large. They got perhaps a smidgen topheavy a few years back, but my understanding is it's been pared, and a few people got their feelings hurt in the process. I can't remember the numbers, but saw something a while back that their percentage of overhead was at the low end of the range, for what they do. They are a habitat organization, and I think that's what they should stay. No, there isn't public access to everything they get involved with, nor is there with FWP or anybody else involved with these easements. Purchases are clearly better, in the access department anyway, but the buck goes farther with easements. Anyway, Newt thinks it would be a bad idea to argue too much about this, cause it's endless.
Anyway, I'm a member. Plan to remain one.

Yeah and every one of them damn Bush's are really democrats. POS's! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Dave, you have to be smokin' some mighty fine [bleep] to come up with that equaling "badly, badly Green." <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />.

BTW, RMEF is about preserving habitat which goes a LONG way towards protecting our rights as hunters. No habitat, no elk, no elk hunters. It's not rocket science guys!

Pointer, when it comes to doing good things for wildlife, RMEF is tough to beat.

If you don't want to support the big dog, then I'd suggest looking into the Mule Deer Foundation. MDF DOES insure that a large percentage of what is donated in a particular state is used in that state. They do good stuff as well.

Dave
Don't reckon i know who you consider to be "regular members" of RMEF, but I am a member who has no problems with the Izaak Walton League or Trout Unlimited. Both are organizations dedicated(as is the RMEF) to habitat preservation from outright buying land to conservation easments that allow ranchers and other landowners to continue working their land while ensuring it can not be turned into condos. I was and am a supporter of the Roadless Initiative begun by FS Chief Dombeck. I am all for preserving what little roadless areas remain in the lower 48. I like getting away from roads and ATVs during hunting season by horse or foot, and i like the idea of preserving that experience for my kids and future generations. I don't see any intent to "split" the hunting/fishing community by preserving habitat or keeping less than 5% of our National Forests roadless.
As to RMEF's roots- they have always spent more than 90% of their budget towards land preservation, and as long as they continue this I will support them.
I am not looking to fire up an arguement, but i felt i had to address these comments. Just another pinyon log on the fire.

At least in Oregon the roadless rules are closing lands which have always been open, not the wilderness areas. The Siskiyou National Monument enclosed private homes and ranches and made them part of a roadless area. The DU, TU and the RMEF tend to be pretty elitist. The state hunting associations and tend to be more for the average hunter. The local Trout Unlimited folks here would and have tried to ban all fishing except fly fishing on the Rogue and Umpqua rivers. I like fly fishing. I've been flyfishing long before it was cool, but to shut down a thriving river so only a few yeppies get to fish is wrong.

99er, I'm supposing SW Co means Durango, and you have one of the "new West" jobs that gives you the freedom to hunt as you would like. Fine.
But even in Montana, one can only hunt big game 5 weeks of the year, the other 47 weeks you have to do something to put food in the freezer.
Pew, TU, and the other lead members of this little game don't give a darn about that little reality. Maybe it's because they don't understand what keeps most people out of poverty...its called "work."
The roadless initiative is not scientifically justifiable, nor is it economically and socially sound policy. The issues you speak of, especially ATV's, could be handled with seasonal closures and game regulations. I don't see how a year-round blanket ban of these toys serves any purpose except to maintain an illusion in the heads of a select few "purists" who feel they were born in the wrong century -- although I think you'd feel different had you been born and forced to live in the "right" one.
I'm really too tired tonight to argue this any further...especially since you support what Pew is trying to do, so what's the point.

Dave
I do live near Durango, but out on what they call the "Dry Side" and haul my own water. I don't know what a "new West" job is, but i work seasonally for the government and fight wildland fires during the summer and scratch through the winter doing fuel reduction and selling firewood. Most of our hunting seasons here are pretty short so you are fortunate to have a longer season. I work hard during the fall, and am limited in my "freedom to hunt as i would like." Maybe you are right about the ATV issue being manageable with seasonal closures, but i regularly see people ignoring closures and the damage they leave. I understand your point of view, and feel that many of Clinton/Babbit's policies went too far and alienated a lot of good folks, mainly ranchers. I don't think i am a purist, but if sportsmen continue to rely on generalizations and labels for people they disagree with then our true enemies(PETA, etc. who want to end hunting) will use this dissent among hunters for their own twisted goals. Guess i need to research Pew some more, but i stand by what i said about preserving habitat. Again, not looking to argue but share my opinion and try to learn other's viewpoints. I guess that is the "point" of a forum like this one.

TCencore,

Thanks so much for posting the link to St. Judes, I too have been a contributor, but after reading Sitka's post (? think it was art anyway forgive me if I got names mixed up) I was starting to feel that flush creep up my face as to when I have been burned and the next thing that happens is I get mad. I think St. Judes is a great organization and it makes me proud to be an American when I see that their major funding is through private donations, even if mine is a drop in the bucket compared to the whole. Art if it was you, no big deal we all make mistakes, and like someone said you reminded us of due diligence. I'm also a regular contributor to Disabled American Veterans....if I need to know better than that please someone let me know. I want bang for my buck whether from government or charities. I don't get to choose whether to support an inefficient government but I do with my charitable dollars. Thanks to all for their input in this matter. 1ak