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

Here, Here! Agreed jryoung.

I can't think of an organization that has done more for elk than RMEF. I worked on a lot of land projects (not as an RMEF person), some of those mentioned in previous posts, and I can tell you that without RMEF, many of them would not have come together. We, and elk, are much better off because of RMEF involving themselves in these projects.

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.

RMEF focused on habitat - their core mission, as the wolf deal was being negotiated by the states and the Feds, leaving the states to do what they think was best. When it went astray, as most any sane person would agree it has, RMEF stepped up the pressure and are big advocates for hunters and elk in the wolf debate.

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.

Some will always find a reason to bitch and moan, while they let others do the heavy lifting. RMEF, their committees, and their volunteers, have been doing the heavy lifting, for a long time. Thank God for that.

The heavy lifting concerning wildlife issues is hardly ever glamorous or heralded. SCI has been working behind the scenes for many years on the ESA with a comprehensive three pronged approach - judicial, administrative and legislative. There will always be groups taking credit for success but few that will go the distance. David Allen of RMEF has righted the ship and is a strong voice concerning all wildlife/conservation issues.

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 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.....

To answer your question directly, YES I did expect RMEF to come out in open opposition to the federal wolf dumping scheme (in the early 1990's), which ANYONE WITH A BRAIN, knew long ahead of time would turn out badly for elk. Now, if you are still (or ever were) following this, in the inception of wolf dumping, the states and the feds USED RMEF's endorsement of the wolf dumping program to show and encourage the public that if RMEF was endorsing the wolf dumping, then dumping wolves must be good. "Because RMEF says so". Oh yes Fin, I was there (where were you Fin?)and RMEF did a great job as a schill for the feds and the states.

Granted, RMEF is now trying to clear thier self sullied name by retracting thier early position on wolves, but the damage is done now. While I welcome RMEF's new and enlightened stance on wolf dumping, it is far too little too late, still it is better than where they stood on the issue 20 years ago.

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.

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.

Regarding the land ownership how do you think that land is maintained? Do you believe the RMEF could afford to buy the land and then afford to maintain it? Its sort of a catch-22 you could have non accessable private land or public land preserved for all. I don't know the answer but I suspect the way they handle land allows them to buy more land and seek to have it preserved while controlling costs as opposed to not being able buy lland at all.

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.

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.

I have no problem with energetic debate and if you feel the way you do, simply keep sending RMEF your money.

If you are willing to wait and buy a wolf tag to shoot wolves, you'll get what you unwittingly deserve.

Sundles, what is your alternative? What are you doing to help protect elk and their habitatt, and how can others like myself get involved?

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

Two things:
1. How do you figure that 300 wolves killing off the pregnant cows and the calves, in less locations than the current 2,000 wolves, would make the herds stronger? I've personally watched wolves run elk herds and kill the babies, one at a time, till all the babies in the herd are dead. This did not help the elk herds become stronger in any way. Less (300) of a bad thing, is still a bad thing, no?
2. In 1994 I predicted (and so did several others, but no-one was listening)that the original goal/limit of 300 wolves would be roundly ignored and that the wolf loving groups would sue over the ESA and wolves and would prevail for a long time while wolf numbers would escalate--the USFWS knew this too, long before they dumped the first wolves in Idaho. Ed Bangs personally told me (at a wolf meeting isn Salmon, ID) that he knew the wolf promoting groups would sue and stop wolf delisting--he then followed with this exact statement. "Isn't America great?"

If you don't get that the whole wolf fiasco was preplanned, then you are not looking, but I was there and involved in the early 1990's and I know the history. I know the lies and I foreknew the results. No, I am not a fan of more and more govt control of ANYTHING as it always has and always will cost more, get out of control, and rob the principles of freedom. "Less is more" when it comes to govt and especially cetralized large govt.

I will concede that we both have our opinions, but I will not concede, nor do I believe that no one is right and no one is wrong.

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.

I was stunned back in the early 1990's while I was watching it all happen. I personally went into the Missoula RMEF headquarters and debated the wolf issue with them. I was told (in so many words) that I didn't have enough education to understand wolves and that wolves would make the elk herds stronger and wolves only kill the weak and that wolves wont over-populate and that wolves only kill what they can eat and that wolves live in loving families and mate for life and on and on...........Shame on the RMEF. The real truth is this--there was a TON of money to be made by wolf dumping in the Rockies as USFWS and their Schills all benefit from the massive funding of species reintroduction. Your elk, your hunting, your faith in govt, etc, was all sold for money. Yes you are correct that those highly educated RMEF biologists, determined biological outcomes in a way that paid the most--till now.

IF you want to know what is even more ironic, the Pitman Roberston excise taxes that come directly from sportsmen when they purchase guns, ammo, fishing gear, etc, is what funded the wolf introduction and just about everything else the USFWS does to destroy our rights through impimentaion of the ESA all over the USA.

Oh, I know the theory involved in wolves (SUPOSEDLY) making the elk herds stronger, althoug it is unprovable and is a super convenient excuse (one of many that have been proven untrue at this late date) If you beleieve that stuff, then why dont we humans simply over hunt the elk we have left? Wont it make them stronger if they are hunted 24/7?--cause that what wolves do, right?

That last paragraph is the ironic twist and should unite all of us. Throw in the Justice Act of the ESA and it just gets uglier.