Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting RMEF struggling??????

I'm just curious how other chapters are doing. The organization has done some fine work, and I'd like to see them survive.

i was a member for many years, but dropped my support after they took the pro-wolf stance. i won't be rejoining any time soon.

I heard APF was gonna buy them out.

Is our local situation just a sign of depressed times or a trend across the board? The organization has done some fine work, and I'd like to see them survive.

American Prairie Foundation - suspect that was tongue in cheek.

When did the state or federal government match funds with any non-profit conservation organization? They come to the non-profits for funding.

Their buff got out recently. Had 'em back in within' 48 hours though...via helicopter!

They want buff all through the Breaks. Cool idea just like Yellowstone except for one small problem. Where they gonna Winter?

Cross the lake and hit Miles City?

grin

Whine cooler.. that made me laugh.

The wolf did me in too I let my member ship end. But now they are thinking they made a mistake and I intend to resign up this year.

For a few years prior to wolf dumping in the Rockies, RMEF promoted bringing the wolves in. Said wolves would make the elk herds stronger. RMEF was in a postition to actually stop the wolf dumping, but instead promoted it and continued to promote wolf dumping till about 2008. I realize that RMEF is now speaking out about how harmful wolves are to their elk, but they have to at this late date, or there wont be any elk left to hunt. If RMEF could have gotten it soooo wrong in the early 1990's why would I want them to have any of my support now?

Further, RMEF simply raises money to buy private land and then gives it to various government agencies. I pay enough taxes to the govt. already, so I don't need to donate more through RMEF. Frankly, I don't want the government getting thier hands on more private land..........

I can see why the RMEF was complacent to allowing woofs in, remember the original agreement was 300. Had that been held to be true, it may have been a good thing for overall herd strength.

However, we know the rest of the story and the RMEF I think takes too much of the blame.

Like any other political organization, I won't agree with everything they do. But, I agree with most things they do and they are trying to right the past. I'll continue to be a donor, they aren't perfect, but are fighting a tough fight, where there are many that a bitching, but aren't doing.

I can see why the RMEF was complacent to allowing woofs in, remember the original agreement was 300. Had that been held to be true, it may have been a good thing for overall herd strength.

However, we know the rest of the story and the RMEF I think takes too much of the blame.

Someone mentioned RMEF is a governement schill. Is that a statement with verifiable data, or something read on the internet? Or heard over a beer at the bar? Would ask for whatever proof exists to support that claim.

Do some really expect RMEF to have come out in opposition to wolves, when the states are the ones who were the parties invovled in the reintroduction. Seems to imply that RMEF has some magical powers to make states and Federal agencies to as RMEF would instruct. REMF realized this was an issue between the states and the Feds, and they went about the business of conserving habitat, while those groups worked out their deal.

So I'm guessing you do all your elk hunting on private land then? Listening to your argument it would seem it'd be hypocritical of you to chase elk on public ground.

Was it Mr. Christensen or Mr. Wolfe??

I still hunt public land, while the government allows us to, that is. Because I hunt there, and disagree with more and more government involvement in our lives, it is not hypocritical as I do pay my taxes. Are folks that have paid (by force), into social security, now hypocrits for collecting benefits??? I think not. Your logic is flawed to the max.

RMEF was not "complacent" on the wolf issue--they were COMPLICIT and there is a huge difference between complacent and complicit. Had RMEF simply been complacent, I'd not have this issue with them, but they endorsed and encouraged the wolf dumping. Further and perhaps more important is that most of the money raised by RMEF goes to purchasing lands that are then given to govt agnecies. IF you are OK with govt agnecies controlling more and more private land, then simply keep donating to RMEF...............

No it isn't. The RMEF is providing more and more public ground for elk and in turn for us elk hunters. I can't see how that's a bad thing at all. Rather have more huntable habitat for elk, than 400 McMansion's anyday. Knock yourself out in your arguments. Me personally, I'll continue to support the RMEF. As to the wolves, they need to be state controlled and brought well under the original 300 in the agreement. I'd like to buy a tag one day and hopefully have a nice wolf rug in front of the fireplace.

You're right they were complicit, which makes my statement more accurate. Had the original agreement of 300 wolves been upheld the herds would be better for it. But, as noted before that agreement with the Feds was not upheld.

You've got your opinion and I've got mine. Neither of us are right and neither of us are wrong.

I'm just stunned at this....that trained biologists with RMEF could not know the carnage these wolves would create....and that their proliferation would come on the backs of the elk, moose herds that sportsmen's dollars had created through sound management programs over many years.

All the more ironic that the same sportsmen helped RMEF raise the money to fund the purchase of the lands they turned over to the Feds,and made RMEF a political force whose endorsements no doubt helped foster the wolf introduction.

A little stress in life is a good thing, the plant than has to root a bit deeper for water, the athlete that has to run one more mile, the survival of the fitttest

A small amount of wolves would test the elk in this regard. Yes they will still kill elk, but overall the elk would be more fit and tuned for survival. For a hunter they would be that much more challenging and fun to hunt. However, at around 2000 wolves the elk cannot sustain their herds and we know what that means.

As for your second point, I was not involved then and don't know what the true ly went on as all I have is hearsay to rely on.

JR,

What went on then is old history and opinions are just that. As mentioned, many of us left RMEF when they dumped the term "hunter" from their magazine and cozied up to the anti-hunting community. I don't know the rules regarding selling of one's sole but David Allen is making up for lost time.

If you want to get involved, join your local SCI chapter (not sure of your location since velocity seems to be keeping you on the move). If legislation is going to work, we are going to need 60+ senators to sign on along with Obama. Numbers do count and SCI and NRA are on the front line of this fight. The elk in Montana don't have much time so we welcome your support.

You missed my point, a small controlled number of wolves would most likely be beneficial. What we have now is not.

NO I did not hear that at a bar or on the internet. It was first told to me by one of RMEF's board members who resigned over RMEF's endorement and encoouragement of the wolf issue and over thier raising of funds to buy private lands and then turn said lands over to govt management. This man was one of the charter members and was directly involved in the national level fund raising and no, I wont name him on the internet or you could claim you simply read it on the internet...wont be offering you a beer either, so you can't dismiss the info as coming from an alchoholic.

The last time I personally looked into the matter was 2001 and yes I went on the internet to RMEF's own web site where they listed all the lands they had given over the govt. agencies. Between state and federal govt agencies, the ammount of land that RMEF had facilitated into govt possession was huge. Perhaps it is the freedom loving person deep within me, but sorry, I am not in line with govt agencies having more and more control over lands that were once private.....

I would prefer to see land exchanged between willing buyers and willing sellers, even if one of those parties is a non-profit organization who intends to turn the property over to a state agency.

I'm just stunned at this....that trained biologists with RMEF could not know the carnage these wolves would create....and that their proliferation would come on the backs of the elk, moose herds that sportsmen's dollars had created through sound management programs over many years.

All the more ironic that the same sportsmen helped RMEF raise the money to fund the purchase of the lands they turned over to the Feds,and made RMEF a political force whose endorsements no doubt helped foster the wolf introduction.

If RMEF were a Trustee of the sportsmen whose money went to both "causes",they would be guilty of a serious conflict of interest and breach of their fiduciary duty to these same sportsmen.

Knowing this,I am regreting that I devoted as much time and energy as I did for the RMEF Chapter in my local area.

For year the great RMWF just looked the other way while the Wolves ate up the herds of elk thinking it was going to help their position. That large flushing sound you're about ready to hear is the RMWF going down the toilet!

I call bull$4it. Many MT hunters have been in the wolf deal since the beginning, and maybe you were also. If that is the case, I guess we have a different interpretation of events that transpired, who said what, and who had the control to affect outcomes.

If you are going to claim that RMEF drove the wolf agreement betweent the Feds and the states, then we have no reason to discuss further. That was the Feds and the states.

Like many in MT, including maybe you, I sat in on almost everyone of those meetings, commented on the state plans, and sat in on many meetings where the state plan was crafted. RMEF was not the driving force in the wolf reintroduction.

Not once did RMEF weigh in as supporting the re-introduction of wolves for the sake of wanting wolves at any meeting or event I attended. They stated they were going to support the state processes, if the state felt it was worth the state's time and effort. If you can find the official position in print where RMEF was asking for wolves, or find it recorded somewhere, show it here, and I will give you the nod as being correct.

Suppose that RMEF had taken the same stance then as they have now. Do you think that could have stopped the states and the Feds from striking some wolf deal? Not a chance. They are a conservation group focused on elk habitat, not the end all and be all for everything that might be proposed on the western landscapes. They have no authority or power over such events.

Who is the RMEF board member who resigned over the wolf introduction? More anectdotal internet rumors, purveyed by the "I'm not going to tell who" defense. And you wonder why people call bull$4it on your statements.

There are four founders to RMEF. Are you talking of one of them as your "Charter Member" who folded his tent and resigned because RMEF was transferring land to public agencies. I doubt it. But, since he remains a mystery man, I guess we will never know.

Whoever it was, he should have resigned if he had a problem with RMEF securing critical habitat and transferring such to public agencies. That has been one of their stated goals from the beginning. If he had a problem with that, he probably should have not been on the board to start with.

All your posts are "my friend said," "someone told me," "I heard." That is fine. Just not a very compelling case for someone making such bold statements about a group that has done more than any group out there when it comes to elk, elk habitat, and elk hunting.

Get some data, provide the links, and people might not take excpetion to what you are saying.

Sounds like you are pissed at the states for botching the deals with the Feds. In that case, maybe you should take your anger and frustrations out on the proper groups - MT/ID/WY and the USFWS.

I think you would have a lot of support for the wolf issue. Most here would support that, including me, if it were something other than an anti-RMEF, anti-public lands rant and was focused at the source of the problem.

As far as public land, if you have some bent against public land, have at it. The number one reason state for people getting out of hunting, hunting less than they have in the past, or having not gotten into hunting, is lack of accessible lands. Don't believe me, go read the National Shooting Sports Foundation study on such.

Not disagreeing with you about RMEF transferring acquired lands to state and sometimes Federal agencies. When they embark on these processes, that is the stated goal from the beginning. That is how they get mathcin funds from the Federal and State sources that are earmarked accounts for the purpose of acquiring habitat and access.

Do you really think that the LWCF moneys are going to be avaiable for the acquisition of critical habitat if we then convey that habitat to private parties? Do you think FWP is going to contribute dollars from Habitat Montana, and then let the land go to a private group?

Other option would be to let the land get subdivided, or whatever other use may occur, to the detriment of elk. I would prefer to see land exchanged between willing buyers and willing sellers, even if one of those parties is a non-profit organization who intends to turn the property over to a state agency.

So, we are losing hunters and places to hunt, and you want to bitch because some group acquires critical wildlife habitat and then conveys it to a public agency for all of us to use. Hmmmm.

You are more than welcome to the idealogic stance that public land is no good. Knock yourself out. Don't expect you are going to have too many supporters for such in an elk hunting forum. I might be wrong, but I suspect most elk hunting in the west occurs on public land.

Hopefully, most here will continue to work toward saving critical habitat, and when possible, make such parcles available to all hunters.

If you want to work against that, and spout your anecdotal stories, go ahead. Some of us feel compelled to make a statement to the contrary, especially when nothing you state is supported by any fact, or at least no facts that you have provided at this time.

I swear I remember the RMEF supporting wolf introduction in order to help and maintain healthy herd numbers in a few articles sometime in the early to mid 1990's. I have to look at some old mags. RMEF came late to the party re the wolf pops and supporting the culling of wolves.

We should focus on sound, reasonable management.

Only one way to do that, trapping.

Only one way to do that, trapping.

I once knew of a hippie that wore a wolf T-shirt that just mentioned the RMEF in passing, he was also a big fan of public land. I had to do the only they I could to get back at him and his kind, so immediately I canceled my membership. I will show them And that is the truth, Billy Bob was there as a witness.

This whole thread is same old, same old. Cheap suckers.

ultimately it was poison that worked the best, by far.

CLEARWATER -- "Pretty traumatic," was how Clearwater resident Brynne Guthrie described the final dying moments for her dog, whom she suspects was the victim of a poison trap likely meant for wolves.
Meanwhile, the incident was reported to Idaho Fish and Game Department, which according to a spokesman has since been taken up by U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
The afternoon of Monday, Feb. 13, Guthrie of Clearwater and her dog, Rico, a three and a half year-old purebred German Shepherd, and six other friends were on a walk at the West Fork gravel pit above town. She said she noticed Rico eating something off the ground, and within 15 to 20 minutes he started convulsing and then couldn't move his legs.
"We tried to rush him to the vet, but we weren't even off hill when he died," Guthrie said, probably less than 10 minutes after the symptoms started. An inspection of the area later turned up an anchovies tin at the spot where Rico was at, which she suspects where poisoned food was left out to kill wolves.
"All politics aside, this is animal cruelty, whether it's a wild animal or someone's pets" she said. Guthrie wanted this incident to be a point of awareness for pet owners and others, especially as this occurred in a place common for people to bring their animals.
"I don't want to see anyone else go through this with their pets," she said.

Historically, trapping helped, but it took poison to really have an impact and that was federally funded poisoning campaigns----no I don't have the historical amounts of poison used, the names of the federal trappers that dispersed it, all the dates they worked, how much they were paid and or a record of thier birthdays, but that does not change the fact that federally funded poisoning campaigns are what had the biggest impact in removing wolves from the Rockies a hundred years ago. Wolves became nocturnal when the hunting pressure was applied and they became trap smart by observing thier pack members getting trapped and some even became poison wise, but ultimately it was poison that worked the best, by far.

[quote=sundles] ultimately it was poison that worked the best, by far.

Though you obviously are not, I am OK with government agencies acquiring more land for wildlife habitat. So I will continue to donate to RMEF, DU, and any other other good conservation group that puts their money where their mouth is, and not the other way around.

Fin, if the land aquired by govt agencies "for wildlife habitat" could ALWAYS and forever be garanteed to remain open for public use in real and meaningful ways, I too would give my support. HOWEVER, I don't trust govt to 1) be honest 2) be efficient or effective....So, I have no problem with the concept you espouse, but govt is not the answer to getting us the practical application we seek as free people, at least not this government, (federal or state) the way it is currently conducting itself. Until corruption in govt can be eliminated, I don't want them having more controls over the citizens.

Knock yourself out Sundles. Care to define what "real and meaningful ways" would be, or better yet, would not be? Don't want to put words in your mouth.

And, are you talking about land acquired by government agencies via conservation group such as RMEF?

I have yet to see one piece of land that was acquired by a conservation group and turned over to a state or federal agency, that is not still open for public use in "real and meaningful ways."

Got any examples where a conservation group acquired land and conveyed to a state agency and it is no longer open for "real and meaningful ways?" Or, is this another one where some guy told you so?

In fact I am curious what action you think would take it out of the "real and meaningful ways" category.

You called it land acquired "for wildlife habitat." I would expect your definition of "real and meaningful ways" would be in the context of wildlife habitat being a priority on such lands.

I don't see that happening, politically, especially with judges such as Molloy bought and paid for by the tree fornicators.

On the other hand, extermination is not on the table. Meaningful control and dispersion is.

There's one big advantage we have now over 100 years ago: we can travel over the snow into country where the woofs are. Once we learn to hunt wolves using modern transportation to put pressure on the wolves in their sanctuary, we just might make a dent.

It would be fun trying, for sure. JMO, Dutch.