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

All the conservation groups have taken a hit. RMEF is still primarily based in in western USA and Canada. The west seems to always suffer the most from economic downturns, plus corporate donations are down significantly for most non-profit groups. Throw in less matching money from states and the feds.

Sorry to hijack guys, but "what if" the State's right to manage wildlife were taken from them by the fed. gov't? What would happen to the ability to hunt on public land? Tim.

So, it can be done without turning conserved land over to the gov.

Yeah, you're right, that was irrelevant. But how about these, you 've side-stepped all the questions I've asked or points I've made. If you want to talk relevancy, then answer a direct question. If you can. I'm betting you can't:





Please don't say you've responded to the second question, because you haven't. In order to respond, you'd need to reconcile your contempt for "government-controlled" public lands with your tendency to spend most of your hunting time on those same lands. Good luck. Maybe you should consult Webster's, under "hypocrite."

What I find most telling about both questions you asked above, is that I gave full answers to them, but I have long observed that certain types of people simply are not capable of HEARING/ACCEPTING answers that don't fit for them.

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?

So, while the discussion may be a futile attempt, at least it is done respectfully and is based on principles of decency.

I recall you and pointer being a tag team on the old Kifaru site as well. Imagine the odds, you both showed up at the same time on this thread. Take care.

Could the BLM or USFS use regulatory changes to allow absolutely no mechanical devices in a wilderness or wilderness study area? Not only bikes, game carts, and hang-gliders, but electric razors, gps, radios, archery equipment, and firearms? By the way, I renewed with RMEF last year, and went to Elk Camp again this year. I skipped a few years because of their stance (or lack of one) on the wolf issue. Tim.

What I find most telling is that you can say with a straight face that you answered this question:



I must've missed it, can you point out your answer to me? As a matter of fact, I think you said you didn't have time to answer. But now you've provided "full answers." Priceless.

And as far as this little gem:



Do you really believe that what you said earlier about pointer and I being a "tag team," and your comment on how it was a funny coincidence that we showed up at the same time was "done respectfully and based on the principles of decency?"

Because I thought it was a rather snide mis-representation of the truth:



It's also utter nonsense. I don't know pointer, never met the man, never corresponded with him on this subject or anything of the kind. I can't even remember the last time he posted something over on the Kifaru site.

You led with your chin by staking out an obviously hypocritical position, and we both called you on it. It was an obvious question that we both asked, that's all there is to it.

No need to whine about it, cast aspersions, and then try to stake out the moral high ground by throwing out "decency" and "respect." You done blown right by both.

Did you find that answer yet, I'd like to read it and see what I missed.

I gave you my answer once. Go back, find it and put it in quotes in context here again and it will still be my answer.

Folks ask questions on here (like you did about RMEF aquired land ever becoming closed to the public) and then think that because you didnt spend a whole day doing reasearch in order to give an exhaustive answer, that you could not answer----however, with me it is a matter of time--not having enough and not caring enough to spend hours of reasearch to answer a question it took 30 seconds to type.........

OK, I did that, and here is your "answer:"



So, I guess it's like Bill Clinton, all depends on what your definition of "answer" is.

I guess my problem is, when people say stuff that doesn't look right to me, such as "the RMEF transfers land to the government and it can then become unavialable for hunting" (that's paraphrased) I want to know what their contention is based on--facts or something else.

If you don't have the facts, just say so, it's not rocket science.

From the RMEF Lands FAQ page:

Q: CAN THE PUBLIC RECREATE AND HUNT ON LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE ELK FOUNDATION?
A: In general, lands the Elk Foundation acquires are open to the public until they are conveyed to a public agency or other entity. After that, as with the case of a public agency, these lands often remain open for public access. The Elk Foundation supports recreational uses that are compatible with maintaining high-quality habitat and healthy wildlife populations. Although sometimes restricted to non-motorized use, access includes such activities as hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding and photography. There are exceptions: based on wildlife populations, some states may limit hunting or not even hold a season.

Q: AFTER THE ELK FOUNDATION TRANSFERS OWNERSHIP TO THE USFS DOES IT MAINTAIN THE RIGHT TO PLAY A ROLE IN DETERMINING THE MANAGEMENT POLICIES ON THAT LAND?
A: Generally yes, when the Elk Foundation transfers ownership of a land parcel to the USFS it does so with the belief and trust that the parcel will be managed with an emphasis for wildlife. After the USFS assumes ownership of a land parcel, the Elk Foundation theoretically has only as much leverage as any other member of the general public in determining management policies. However, given the history and strength of our long-standing partnership with the USFS, we will provide valuable input into management decisions whenever possible.

The Elk Foundation also has the opportunity to influence management policies through the NEPA process. The Elk Foundation may submit comments on proposed management policies on specific parcels, and we fully intend to continue to take an active role in that process whenever possible.

I for one, will go another direction.

..... but in closing, I'm going to risk the spending/wasting of valuable time, once again and then I'm done.

I've also stated that I don't believe in turning more and more and more of anything that is private, over to govt managment or ownership. That is my opinion and I certainly don't need to do a bunch of research to back up said opinion, especially for you.

Other things you say are amazing. You stated I led with my chin on the issue of you and Pointer potentially being a "tag" team.

Well, when you said it, I didn't think you'd stick to it.




100%, absolutely correct. You don't need to have any back-up to have an opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.

But like you said earlier, this is a forum where we debate things. And if I'm debating something in a public forum that's important to me, like habitat conservation and public land policy, and someone such as yourself outlines an opinion in that debate that I don't agree with and believe is unsupported, I'll damn well ask for the evidence or facts to back up that opinion.

Are you here to tell me that asking the question is out of line?

In my opinion, it's not out of line to ask for facts to back up stated opinions. If for no other reason than to show that the opinion is unsupported so that anyone reading this who may be on the fence can see it's unsupported and make up their own minds. After all, this is a debate, right? And people use facts in debates, right?




No, that's not what I said at all. I'll explain it for you. The comment about "leading with your chin" was in reference to your apparently conflicting (some may say hypocritical) positions of on the one hand maintaining that putting land in control of the federal government is a bad thing, and on the other hand saying that you spend most of your time hunting on those very same lands. The unstated fact being that if those lands were private, instead of publicly-controlled, it's more likely than not that you wouldn't have access to them. So whether you realize it or not, the federal government controlling the NF lands you hunt on has been and will continue to be a benefit to you.

That's what I meant by "leading with your chin"--holding conflicting positions that lead to the obvious question of how you can reconcile the two.

Meaning, it should come as no surprise that two different people reading this would have the same question, and that there's no "conspiracy" involved. Now I see that you've added Tim in Nevada, I suppose the conspiracy is growing.

You see an "internet conspiracy" among three guys that don't even know each other, but it's the things I say that are amazing?

That's rich.

And which direction is that?

Away from RMEF, whom at one time, when I was more naive, I held in some esteem.

I'm not giving any money or property to any entity that turns around and donates it to govt agnecies.

So, while the discussion may be a futile attempt, at least it is done respectfully and is based on principles of decency.

However, the fact that some one of your character keeps making an issue of it.......

I did not say anything about any "internet conspiracy". Those are your words, (yet you try to make them mine) but the odds of being struck by lightening or having three guys you have not dealt with for 6 years, since the last time the same topics were being addressed in a far different forum, all show up at the same time in a totally different forum is pretty slim, uh, make that extremely slim, so only an idiot would not notice.....