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

Bingo. I have my traps in the shop, waiting for the day they let us do that. That will result in some serious wolf management. But, I fear it will be a dream.

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.

dinkshooter???? Based on that post, an appropriate handle indeed.

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.

Poisoning wolves is wrong because this happens way to much...

In our local paper this week...



Jayco

This is very true and the bottom line of how to do it.

My uncle was a govt. trapper and seen his poison guns at work first hand.

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. [/quote


I think a combination of things will occur. 1) there are folks that love thier game animals and their liberty and country enough to illegally kill (with firearms and or poison) wolves and that number of folks is ever increasing and I am certain that in ID alone, several hundred wolves per year are killed ilegally by such partriots--and thank God for them, or we would have long ago lost our hunting and our big game 2)I believe legislation will be passed federally to remove wolves from listing with the ESA and states will finally set the wolf populations at the original level of 300 and no federal judges will be able to interfere. 3)With budget cuts coming, there may possibly be less money to go around for ESA related freedoom robbing, constituion violating activity.

So with the coming funding crunch, perhaps federal legislation and vigil antis protecting us in the mean time, I believe that is how the problem will be handled.

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'm all for more public land, but it would be a lie to say that the USFWS isn't a little ridiculous with the regulations that they place on the lands that they manage in this area. No lead shot - even on lands that have no water whatsoever, no trails or access to the water (lugging one's entire spread for a mile to the water in some cases), can't use a gas powered ice auger to drill holes for ice fishing, burns during the spring nesting season in an effort to re-create native prairie, no horseback access, the list goes on.

Fin, Thakyou for finally not trying to put words in my mouth--it really is much appreciated. Folks normally put words (make stuff up) in others mouth because 1) they are not mentally capable of of reading or listening with comprehension (which I don't think was/is the case with you) or 2) they are being disingenuous. I have a lot more respect for the unable than for the disingenuous.

You unwittingly pointed out one of the problems with govt controls when you asked me to define "real and meaningful" ways. I've seen the feds close roads in national forest to motorized travel when those roads have been open for decades, only to turn around 20 years later and reopen those roads to motorized travel. I've seen them close entire sections of national forest for endangered species, fire danger, (according to them) etc, etc. Right now, you and I hunt and recreate on federal lands only at the pleasure of the USNFS, do we not??

And here is where you are really in the dark........just because a govt angency (any agency) has not yet closed or controlled a piece of land (no matter how they obtainsed that land--it does not matter) does not mean they can't close it or regulate it and do it at the "drop of a hat". For many years I packed with horses into the Saw Tooth National Recreation Area. I parked in the same place year after year, unloaded my horses/mules, packed my gear and left for a week or two. Then about 20 years ago, the USNFS started requiring a FREE permit to park--I refused to comply. Then they started CHARGING for a parking permit based on the number in your party, per vehicle, per day parked there. I refused to comply then and I don't go there any more. I prefer to pack up trails that are not regulated by ticket writing feds, who pack Glock pistols, mace and hand cuffs, among other things. I think we are over regulated and not only is it a waste of tax payer money (imagine that) but it keeps getting bigger and bigger until basic constituional rights become infringed. It appears that you don't understand that type of concept and that would put you in the majority in this country, which is why we find ourselves susceptible to the current state of affairs like wolf dumping, (or insert a host of other govt. programs, just from the ESA)etc. Our great grandfathers would not have tolerated this type of crap for one minute, to the point of shooting the perpetrators, but now we have a generation of folks, who like you, not only accept more govt intrusion, but welcome it and don't get how destructive it becomes to the principles that made this country great in the beginning.

I don't claim to have all the answers, not even close. However, turning more and more power (land control is a form of power) over to ANY govt agency is just more of the slippery slope to servatude and if you don't think we are currently sliding down that slope at high speed, I am not suprised, but we are, in almost every facet of our regulated lives. RMEF facilitated wolf dumping for the feds and the states just before the wolf dumpng started and during the first several years of wolf populations exploding. RMEF was in bed with the states and feds on land deals worth tens of millions, and when the feds and the states wanted wolves, RMEF was right there supporting thier govt partners in misinforming the public about wolf and elk interactions. I personally watched RMEF do this for years, so don't tell me to document it. If you were paying attention back then (something I doubt) you'd have seen it too and by the way RMEF now admits they took the wrong stance on wolves, (so much for me needing documentation to prove it to you)so you may not know RMEF did it, (seems everyone knows it but you) but RMEF knows and admits it now, and because RMEF did deceive the public at one time, I cannot trust them with possible future events. If you want conservation groups to learn a lesson from all of this, RMEF needs to go bankrupt and that will send a clear message to whomever takes their place, and some group will/would take thier place and perhaps keep the truth (not lies) a priority in the future.

Good point

Gotta hand it to you Sundles. You have done one hell of a job convincing at least one person of your wolf dumping conspiracy - YOU.

That is some funny stuff right there.

Wanna hear my personal story about a neighbor who "personally watched" something that he expected me to believe? Here it is.

He would call the cops about twice a month. He "personally watched" UFOs land in our neighborhood. He would try to tell me the same thing, and I would just walk away. He would call the cops again a couple weeks later, as he had again "personally watched" some UFOs land. I think he eventually moved, or they put him in the nut house.

So, it is with good reason that I don't put a lot of faith in guys who have no evidence, have no supporting documents, yet "personally watched" something.

Since you "personally watched" all of this, I am sure it is true. Yeah, gotta be, if you "personally watched" it.

Did you previously live in Gallatin County, MT?

Carry on.

I am pretty sure Sundles lives in a sand bag fortified house. Believe me Sundles, they ARE coming for you. Lock and load man.

I'm with sundles 100 percent on this one. Good job.

They are coming to get you too Lazyered. Watch out.

You don't have to be brilliant (or even smart) to know that RMEF has aplogized for supporting the past wolf dumping, which means they did support it at one time. If you cared, you could find it in thier printed material.

Anything in this thread that I said I was a part of, I was, (and a whole lot more) but if you are not even aware of what RMEF has been up to (it is public info) I doubt you know my history and it seems obvious that you don't care enough to discover the truth on these issues--almost as if you have some sort of vested interest in RMEF. I do believe I saw a picture of you (on this site) with a large bull elk that you killed on an RMEF ranch...........

Never mind that if you can't make a decent arguments of fact, you'll simply devolve the discussion to UFO's and such. Oh my.

The facts:
1. In 2001 my wife and I and our pack string of horses and mules were attcked by the Twin Peaks wolf pack, while on a wilderness pack trip in the "Middle Fork". The feds said this pack consisted of 7 wolves, but there were at least 20!!--as I later discovered.
2. I killed the alpha male about 5 feet from my wife with a Marlin 45-70.
3. I went public with the attack and a federal investigation was launched. In spite of the feds best efforts and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, no grand jury would indict.
4. US senators Larry Craig and Mike Crapo came to Salmon, ID to meet with me on the issue.
5. The Idaho Senate invited to come testify to the 2001-02 session. Although I was invited to future sessions, I declined as it was a waste of valuable time. The female legislators in the Idaho congress were much tougher and smarter than any of the men (ie Lenore Barret and Joane Woods) I would let them watch my back any time.
6. BY this time numerous national publications featured my wolf attack story.
7. I started the internets most trafficked (at the time) wolf web site called Natures Wolves, where among other things, I published a paper on how to poison wolves. This pissed the feds off. Idaho newspapers got my consent to reprint the poisoning documents in thier papers--this pissed the feds off more......
8. I encouraged the public to kill wolves in Idaho papers and live on Idaho news channels, so that we would not lose our big game herds, because I knew that while the politicians argued, the wolves would populate and the killing would increase.
9. In the mean time, many large news papers in the US and several overseas papers wanted interviews. I got to know everyone who was any one in the pro and anti wolf debates. I was loved and hated.
10. 16 federal and Idaho state agents raided my house with machine guns and a serch warrant, etc. (your tax dollars at work)
11. In 2005, after 3 grand Juries refused to indict, the feds simply filed charges against me "on information", which they have the right to do on a misdameanor charge, but not on a felony charge.
12. In order to save a 26 year marriage, (my wife was afraid of everything) I took down the web site and pled guilty to the charges, just to get them to go away. Had congress women Helen Chenowyth not died in a car crash, I would not have pled guilty as she was raising the funds to take my case all the way to the supreme court if need be, but when she died, I was not willing to pony up the hundreds of thousands of dollars that such a case would cost, just for a couple misdameanors. Plus, my marriage was in shambles.

I left out much more than I included, cause I didn't want to put any one to sleep. Those are some of the facts, just as it is factual about what I said RMEF was doing. There are people who post here, who know me and know the history I just wrote. No I did not even keep documents on my own case, cause I simply don't have time, but if I had to, I could dredge stuff up, but I know it's all true and more and I certainly don't need to teach you anything you dont want to learn, but if you keep saying all this stuff didn't happen, some one will come on here with the docs and you'll look like an even bigger ass than you already do. Take care.

Do you want to bet on that?

Have never stepped foot on an RMEF Ranch, as a hunter or as a guest. I think you are referring to the Double HH in NM. I hunted within sight of that ranch, on public land. We packed the bull out on our backs. Took plenty of trips and logged over 15 miles in doing so. Had I access to such ranch, I suspect I would have called and asked for a ride, rather than grunting it out.

Is this another one of your "I watched it with my own eyes" facts, or is this in the category of "I read it on the internet?"

You are doing a good job of proving my point there, Sundles. I am not saying that your accusations could not be true. I am asking for proof that it is true, beyond your anecdotal fairy tales. So far, with no results provdied from you, other than you most recent claim of something you saw on the internet with is completely incorrect.

Since the point you just made is 100% false, you expect all of us to believe your drivel about things you read, saw, or heard, but cannot provide one single bit of evidence for. Sorry, but I ain't buying what you are selling.

More than willing to give you the GPS coords on that bull, if you want them.

As far as your wolf incident, a person would have to be living under a rock if they were not aware of your incident. Regardless of the outcome, and what happened, I am truly sorry that you had to go through all of that.

I have had family and friends who have had pets killed by wolves, but never any personal attacks. In have lived around wolves all my life, and feel fortunate to have not been in the situation you have.

I will believe what you say about all of that, as you were there. If you killed the wolf in self defense and/or in defense of your property, I would expect all of us here would support you on that.

I do not want to make light or humor of that event. I am sure it was a life changing deal. I wish it had not happened to you.

So yes, I, and I suspect anyone who has been involved with the wolf ordeal in the Rockies, is aware of your situation. No argument from me on that.

Though you seem to think I would not be aware nor willing to investigate, I was aware. Lots of discussion of your situation occurred in our neck of the woods. But, I do not claim to know what happened and will not opine on what happended, as I was not there and anything I would have heard would have been anecdotal BS. I am taking your word on it, as you would know better than anyone.

As far as a vested interest in RMEF. Nope. Just spent lots of hours working on land deals and the one group who was always there was RMEF. Not NRA, B&C, or DU, of which I am a life member. Not SCI, not SFW, not XYZ.

RMEF brought people to the table. They stuck their neck out and put up option purchase money to give time to raise the funds to complete much of the deals. And, they never asked for credit like some of the groups do. They were more concerned about the land being preserved.

In one big transaction, I was the adviser of the landowner. Many groups were trying to get involved in a very big deal on the north boundary of YNP. The government agencies and the other non-profit groups had no understanding of why a landowner wanted to do this. Their lack of understanding killed the deal on many occassions, only to be recessitated by RMEF. They understood landowners and their attachment to the land, and that money was secondary to the deal. Fortunately, the landowners came back to the table and the deal got done.

Those experiences impressed me much. Enough that I am vested in their common goal of preserving wild lands and wildlife, to the degree that when I read unsubstaniated comments by those who appear to have an axe to grind, I ask for evidence.

This hunting season in Montana, hundreds of bulls were killed on properties secured by RMEF. They put the deals together to protect the land, then work with the agencies to exchange or hold the property. Thousands of hunter days are experienced on these properties, and will continue to be the case.

Hopefully we can get to a wolf solution in MT, as if not, the number of elk hunter days on these properties will diminish. I think we all are working toward that goal of state control over wolves.

I guess we all go through life with the glass being half full or half empty. My view is the glass is always half full. With the work RMEF has done on behalf of elk and elk hunters, I view their glass as pretty close to full, in spite of the times I have disagreed with their position on certain things.

They are like any group. Not perfect, and at times, will put any of us on the other side of the table on some issues. But, in their entirety, they are a huge plus for elk and elk hunters. I know you probably disagree.

I suspect it is fair to say that your experience with wolves, and with the process of an investigation, has influenced your opinion about anyone and anything related to wolves. Maybe not, but that is how it comes across to me by reading your posts. Why you feel the need to make accusations of groups that had no say or control over the introduction of wolves is still a mystery to me.

Time to sign off on this one. Best of luck in getting the pieces put back together. Hope your 2011 hunting season is your best ever.

Carry on.

This is an example of where you and I get cross-ways.

I did not say I was there with you on the Double H when you killed that bull, did I? All I stated was that I thought I saw a picture of you on an RMEF ranch, Right? However, Years ago, I WAS ACTUALLY IN THE RMEF MISSOULA HEADQUARTERS MORE THAN ONCE and the folks staffing the facility had printed pro wolf hand outs and would (and did) discuss the benefits to elk of having federally protected wolves dumped here. Also, I read more than one article (that means I was there) in Bugle magazine over the years that was so pro wolf it made me ill............Now Fin, being there, as you poointed out is far different than thinking or wondering about something you may have seen on the internet and you and I agree on that principle. Well, I was there, at the RMEF facility in Missoula and had those discussions and I read the articles in Bugle and I personally had an ex-RMEF board memeber come to my house twice on a related, but different than RMEF issue, but RMEF became a subject of disscussion more than once between us and he quit any involvement with RMEF because of thier pro wolf stance and because of how monies were being raised to secure land that was then turned over to various govt agencies. Now, I only know what he told me, but I was not there with him each day during his years of service with RMEF, and no I wont tell you his name. But I did speak with him in person, a lot--very different from speculating about something you think you might have seen on the internet, RIGHT?

Further as you and I have gone through this debate, you first tried to claim I stated things I didnt state. (not genuine at all) WHen that tatctic did not work for you, you started in on the UFO stuff, trying to infer that I am mentally unstable....so if you can't argue with facts, (and it is a fact that RMEF was prowolf for over 15 years) you used lies and then sought to discredit me by bringing UFO's into the mix. These are disingenuous tactics normally used by those who can't make a fact based argument. In the days shortly after I killed that big alpha male and then went public, I experienced just these types of tactics from the the pro-wolf group supporters. They went one step further than you as I was having a slow day back then if I didn't get a death threat by noon......

IF you are going to argue a cause (by the way, you started this by "calling bul4$hit" on me) dont put words in folks mouths as it is dishonest and is in effect lying. Second, don't try the old, old tactic of implying that your advesary in that debate is mentally unstable.....This is super disingenuous conduct.

I could disagree with you on a number of matters and remain amicably disposed to you, but when you start in lying, and infering I am mentally unstable, it exposes a part of your character, that I want noting to do with and that I despise in any person that exhibits such.

Personally, it cracks me up when a guy who spends a lot of time hunting on "Governement-Controlled" wilderness complains about the government owning land. If it's National Forest or BLM, it's open for all the public to hunt on.

So here's a question, see if you can answer it--how much land that RMEF has acquired and turned over to the government is now unavailable for public hunting?

And to answer the original question, our local chapter seems as strong as ever.