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

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.