Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game response to Toolelk

Toolelk you said,

Obviously, you consider Safari Club International, Mule Deer Foundation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife, National Wild Turkey Federation, Montana Outfitters & Guides Association, Wild Sheep Foundation, etc. as insignificant. MWF affliates are actually leaving.

I'm going to give you the run down in the first post of the groups I know very little about.

Actually, in that list, I only find a few insignificant, and a couple outright harmful to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. I know nothing of NWTF, totally neutral toward them.

DU, I've been a member of in the past and think they do great things for wetland/riparian habitat.

The WSF I also have a rather neutral stance on them. They do great things for sheep and put a lot of sheep on the hill. I wasnt overly impressed with the urination competition between them and grandslam/ovis. I think both those groups did a huge amount of damage to the hunting community with their struggle, court case, and childlish behavior. There was a lot of time, effort, and money wasted over the grand slam bullchit that would have been better utilized to put more sheep on the mountain.

SCI I'm not a fan of, I dont agree with shooting animals in pens and then entering them in some sort of record book, they do. IMO, they spend too much time defending some pretty questionable hunting practices. I dont fly under the "we all have to stick together no matter our hunting styles/ethics". Thats a bunch of bullchit...I wont defend some of the legal, but unethical things they defend. Wont do it and they wont get anywhere with me trying to guilt me into taking up their questionable behavior.

Now on to the ones that I do know about.

I think a good place to start is with the RMEF. I was a member in the past, during the early years. The RMEF had a great vision and the idea took off. Along the way, they strayed off course, and the wolf issue really hurt them. Even though they stayed neutral for a long time, many of the uninformed threw them under the bus as being wolf lovers, pro-wolf, etc. That was brought on by the absolute worst group in the history of Wildlife and that is Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW), which was founded by Don Peay. That group raked the RMEF over the coals over the wolves and other issues...to the point that the RMEF was forced to take a position. They took the same position that most every single hunter in MT, ID, and WY did...delist and manage wolves via state management plans. They gained traction again and got back on course, IMO. I was pretty critical over the RMEF and their position on HR1581 and I didnt hold back. Eventually the RMEF reversed their support of it and got it right. I think the RMEF recognized that they needed to listen to the people who support their group, the average sportsmen. They enlisted the help of Randy Newberg. Through their affiliation with Randy, they've become a better group. They strongly opposed AZSFW on HB2072(IRRC on the bill number) that would have taken around 300 of the best tags in Arizona and put them up for auction/expo drawings (similar to UTSFW). Recently Randy was appointed to the RMEF board of directors, where immediately MOGA/WYOGA threatened the RMEF that they would pull their support of the RMEF if Randy was appointed. Real classy thing for MOGA to do. More about SFW, MDF, and MOGA later. When the RMEF refused to be strong-armed by MOGA/WYOGA over Randy's appointment, I rejoined the RMEF. They are in the process of getting back to the basics of securing elk habitat, and doing whats best for wildlife and the average hunter. I dont think the RMEF is going to be on the wrong side of sportsmen again...at least thats my hope.

...continued.

Now on to Sportsmen for Wildlife.

Why anyone would ever support or allow this group to have anything to do with wildlife is a complete mystery to me. Their founder, Don Peay, is 100% against the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and he's made that fact known in the press.

His group, and all the state Chapters, should be renamed what they really are...and thats Sportsmen For the Wealthy. Their idea is take public tags and put them up for sale to the highest bidders. Strictly a profit driven entity that has shown ZERO accountability to money raised at the Western Hunting Expo, and any other funds that they touch. In fact, the RMEF released a statement that they would support a requirement that ALL groups that receive a governors tag, auction tag, etc. would have to show full disclosure...of course SFW went on the attack over it.

The Alaska Chapter was another whole fiasco of epic proportions. Don Peay was able to use political favors to oust the sitting Director of the AK Game and Fish, a highly qualified biologist. He was replaced with Corey Rossi, the President of AKSFW and a friend of Peays. Keep in mind that Rossi had ZERO wildlife background, but was beating the kill every predator drum that SFW is known for. Their answer to every problem is kill predators. It wasnt long after his appointment that Rossi was convicted of 12 counts of poaching involving illegal outfitting, killing bears without tags, transfer of tags, and, well...12 counts. He resigned. Another thing that came up with Rossi, involved the taking of some musk-ox under a subsistance registration hunt. He tried to get a biologist to NOT destroy the ox horns, which is required by law. I know this to be fact, not only from the public record, but also because I was 1 of 2 NR's that drew trophy ox tags in the same area that Rossi hunted. The same biologist that wouldnt let him get away with not destroying the horns, was the same guy that I sent my ox information to.

The MT chapter of SFW is also a real crown jewell of the hunting world. They have recently testified in favor of the elk test and slaughter bill in Montana. They're against corner crossing in Montana as well.

Further, they ran static on the Simpson/Tester rider that delisted wolves in MT and ID...which eventually lead to delisting in the great lakes region. They tried unsuccessfully to sabotage the Simpson/Tester language and signed a letter that several other groups were on their side in opposition of S/T. That was a lie, and the groups they signed for, quickly corrected them and released a statement saying that not only do they fully support S/T, but that anything that SFW released that had their name on it in the future should be disregarded.

This is just the tip of the iceberg on the chit that SFW has done...I could type another 5 pages of them being on the wrong side of just about every piece of legislation that is damaging to MT, WY, CO, AZ, and the hunters in each of those states.

The MDF is totally in bed with Don Peay/SFW and the kill every predator band-wagon. I'm suspect of any group that spends the amount of money they do, killing coyotes to "fix" mule deer problems. In particular when study after study after study shows that killing coyotes to increase mule deer populations is largely an excercise in futility. I've nothing against killing coyotes, I like coyote hunting and I've killed my fair share. But, it is simply NOT the answer to recovering mule deer populations.

MOGA/WYOGA, like I already mentioned have lost what little credibility they may have had. Its a POS organization that would threaten the RMEF over an appointment to their board of Directors over a guy like Randy Newberg. Randy is a down-to-earth guy that is looking out for the North American Model and the hunter of average means. I can assure you, the RMEF board is lucky to have him, and that as hunters, we're lucky he is on that board as a voice to the guy of average means. Funny that MOGA/WYOGA view a guy that hunts public land, for public wildlife, as a threat? Its also chickenchit that those in oppostion to his appointment not didnt bother to call and talk to him directly, they also wont even return his phone calls to THEM.

Further, MOGA is also on the wrong side of HB274, HB511, SB151, and SB260 in Montana.

MOGA/WYOGA are losing credibility and really have made themselves insignificant...I had nothing to do with it. Give them enough rope, they hang themselves...same as SFW...same as MDF.

What these groups need to realize is that the average sportsmen are done taking their chit. There is fundamental lack of concern shown to public access, the North American Model, and the guy of average means.

The average hunters have been run over in the past by some of these groups. Now that we're not allowing them to run rough shod over us, they throw their suckers in the dirt and are pouting like children.

I will show no mercy to any of them. I'm done compromising away my rights, my wildlife, and my future as a DIY public land hunter...only to watch the wealthy cut in line over the people that have created the abundant wildlife we have. If not for the NAM and the average hunter...there wouldnt be abundant wildlife and opportunity for guys of average means...and thats just a fact.

They can KMA, I'm looking out for the DIY public land hunter and the NAM long before I lift a finger to watch them destroy what guys like my Father and Grandfather did for Wildlife.

If they expect me to sit back and go along with their bullchit ideas...they couldnt be more wrong.

Great stuff Buzz. mtmuley

I said it in the other thread and I'll say it again here, Don Peay and SFW are bad news for DIY hunters! They've raped and plundered Utah and I hate to see the scourge move into other states!

Buzz, that looks just about right. Great memory.

Nicely put.

Boone and Crockett is no better. How many animals are entered each year that were killed under "questionable" tactics? Pretty much all the governor's bucks from CO should be banned. I think record books in general have put the hurt on ethical hunting.

I am not a fan of the MDF because they really have no opinion on things that matter. Chasing buck/doe ratios is a falicy, and someone should speak out about it. As long as they are getting money from their govenor's tag they are quiet on that issue too. Not to mention the number one predator of mule deer is man.

Good info Buzz, thanks.

Great post Buzz.

Thanks for the education Buzz. I'm planning on doing an elk hunt in near future.I was planning it in MT. My original plan was to hire a guide but i've read to much negativity about MOGA so i think i'm gonna hunt a buddys property near Dillon and do it myself.

Buzz,

I sense that you would like a debate as you referred to my "taking the bait". It appears that your schooling is more of an opinion piece and I give you credit for taking a position. I must be naive as I was hoping for less division among like-minded groups. I did attend one "summit" that was billed as hunting organizations meeting to form a concensus with no political agenda. In the end, it turned out to be the initial formation of a PAC that did support a candidate that I do not believe has hunters' best interests in mind. On that note, it appears that MWF would prefer to use wildlife as a political tool which could be viewed as a wedge. The buffalo issue is one of many examples - the heck with private property rights and raise the flag of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation as a rallying cry. Most of us are not single issue voters and do not agree that wildlife should be a political pawn.

I can't claim to have the inside baseball insight on all of the organizations you listed, but I do admit to being a member of several. I will follow your lead and comment only on those that I know.

1. SCI's mission is protecting the right to hunt. Your characterzation of "shooting animals in pens" is inaccurate. There is not a more influential hunting advocate group in the world. You will undoubtedly call BS on this statement but the facts are there if you care to research. You might find it interesting that in the latest Forest Service plan of approved activities, hunting was mysteriously absent. SCI's DC office caught the error, pressured congress and forced the FS to correct. Take a look at the recent court cases regarding hunting and you will find SCI listed (I have never seen MWF involved in litigation). Every May, hundreds of SCI members converge on the Capitol to lobby their elected officials on behalf of all hunters. I know of no other organization that expends that effort and I am proud to be a member. The benevolent side of SCI (known as Safari Club International Foundation) is involved in the conservation, education and humanitarian side of hunting. Their accomplishments would be a book on how hunters give back.


2. Like you, I was once a member of RMEF and also decided to leave when I disagreed with many of their positions. You also will remember the brouhaha with RMEF and MWF. RMEF relies on outfitters for fundraising - certainly understandable that the outfitters would question a board position that might not be in their best interest (I have no idea where Randy stands on outfitting). Seems much to do about nothing.

3. I am also a member of MDF and involved in one specific chapter that does more for youth hunters than any other group I have been involved with. I think Miles has done a great job of bringing the organization back from the brink and confident this benefits the species and hunters in general.

Since you are obviously engaged in all of this, I have some questions:

1. Who gained by the passing of I-161?
2. Why is there such vitriol for non-residents? Since the western states are comprised of large amounts of Federal land, should they not have an opportunity?
3. With well funded anti-hunting organizations, why are the hunting/species groups so splintered?
4. I am also a DIY hunter and find it incredible that I rarely see anyone hunting on the public land I hunt. There sure seems like more than enough opportunities if one is willing to put in the effort. Why is there not more dialog between the stockgrowers/landowners and the hunting community?
5. When will we wake up and realize that our sport is in the cross hairs of a well funded attack?
6. Do you really think our sport would be better off without outfitters?

One observation that I can't overlook - both NWF and MWF have been heavily involved in lobbying and were very influential in the outcome of the last election. I admit it is difficult to agree with every issue supported by the named organizations, but I am more than sure that the Obama administration has no love for hunters.

This thread was started due to the premise of free ranging buffalo. I sincerely think this is nothing more than the anti-hunting crowd's attack on our beloved sport.

I'm not Buzz but I'll give you my take on your 3 questions.
1. The DIY hunter of MT gained, in that the outfitting industry in MT was shown that they don't get to control hunting here.
2. Not so much vitriol as it is an approach that says they can have what the people of MT say they can have. If they want more, they can always move here and become taxpaying, productive members of a MT community.
3. Becuase many of them have very different goals/supporters and often these goals are counter to the goals of other organizations.
4. Until leasing goes away, there will never be great dialog between hunters and landowners because wildlife has become a means for some landowners to make money. DIY hunters stand in the way of them making money when they demand access to corner crossing, etc.
5. Not until it's too late, if at all. The fact that MOGA, et al was able to deny access to 900,000 acres of public land is a pretty good example of this.
6. YES!!! If there were 6-8 outfitters in the whole state and no leasing, my opinion would probably be different.

Thanks Ranger. I suspect your reference to denying access is concerning the corner crossing bill? I was there and think there is much more to that story.

As a Montana property owner, should I not have the right to lease?

You own the grass and the ground, etc. Lease it out for grazing or farming or whatever else. I just don't like the idea that an individual can basically sell the animals that we all hold in trust. If you took the money made on a public resource (leasing) out of the equation, I think landowners would recieve near 100% support from the hunting public.

As to corner crossing, how much more can there be to a bill that says you can walk from one parcel of public land to another??

Toolelk,

MWF was not involved in the election. To do so would be a violation of their 501(C)3 status. NWF is also a 501(C)3. To claim that these two organizations were involved in the election is a serious charge and one that should not be made unless there is specific information or evidence that proves the statement. If you have that evidence, then post it up.

Ben,

You know the meeting I referred to and the considerable dialog concerning tax status. I will agree that MWF and probably NWF were not directly involved as it would viloate their status. However, we both also know that a NWF staff member was very active in creating a PAC supporting both Obama and Senator Tester. Certainly, their right to do so but I will stand by my statement that neither candidate is hunter friendly. As also stated, wildlife is being used as a political tool and that needs to stop if there is a chance to get the stakeholders to the table.


I was about to comment on the other thread - your post provides hope.

"I don't think using Buffalo as a threat is any more appropriate than closing private ground for payback is. Both sides who think along these extremes just hurt landowner/sportsmen relationships, but here we are."

Toolelk,

Really, you want to stand by your statement that Tester isnt "hunter friendly"?

Head in the sand, or just in denial?

http://www.boone-crockett.org/news/featured_story.asp?area=news&ID=105

http://www.boone-crockett.org/news/featured_story.asp?area=news&ID=111

How about the work he did with Mike Simpson(R) from Idaho that got wolves delisted and in state control?

How about the Sportsmens Act of 2012?

Hardly things you see from a candidate that is not hunter friendly.

Thats in contrast to the loser Rehberg...who has systematically thrown hunters under the bus in Montana.

You know things like opposing and trying to derail the Simpson/Tester Rider for wolf delisting.

Illegally posting State Lands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpB-ZhmL8Do

Lets not forget the federal land grab by good ol' hunter friendly Rehberg:

Representative Dennis Rehberg
In 2005, Rehberg voted for the notorious public lands sell-off measure authored by Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo and Nevada Congressman Jim Gibbons. The measure, contained in a budget bill, passed the House by a narrow two-vote margin in the dead of night and without debate as part of its Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (H.R. 4241). Though the damaging bill was thwarted in the Senate, the Rehberg-supported proposal to sell-off hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands to the highest bidder flies in the face of Montana�s rich hunting and fishing tradition.

And Rehberg has apparently never met an oilman he didn�t like. In his short career, he�s already accepted $196,851 in career campaign contributions from big oil and gas companies (www.opensecrets.com) and has continually been a champion of industry interests over the public interest.


All great hunter friendly agenda items that Rehberg was known for.

Good grief...theres a reason why Sportsmen sent Denny to the unemployment line.

Buzz,

You have managed to not answer any of my questions but I will respond as you enjoy my taking the bait.

I will admit that Senator Tester played the wolf issue very well, politically speaking. You might be surprised to know that Senator Tester actually enlisted MOGA before taking a stand - yes, those nasty outfitters. Additionally, SCI was very much involved with this legislation and actually countered the evil SFW position. This was all about compromise and in the end, worked out for all parties (including the Great Lakes). Congressman Rehberg did not try to derail the bill, he stood up for removal of wolves from the ESA.

You want to make this political - your choice. I wonder how many times you have sat in Senator Tester's office to discuss hunting issues? Clearly, your agenda and stance is political which would seem counter to the NAM you loudly tout.

I'm not making it political...I'm living in the reality of absolutely what has happened, and who did what to help or slap hunters around.

The proof is in the puddin' I just provided.

I never asked the Legislatures in MT, ID, WY, CO, etc. to poke their nose in the business of sportsmen or carry chickenchit legislation forward that damaged hunting, public lands, and public access to same.

THEY DID.

Plus, on this thread, YOU made the first comments about the politics and politicians involved around your lies about the NWF and MWF campaigning.

Really, he didnt try to derail Simpson/Tester...head in the sand again, or still in denial of the TRUTH:

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/idaho_montana_wolves_delisted_by_congress/C41/L41/

Although Sen. Max Baucus, D-MT, and Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer both praised Tester�s successful efforts, Denny Rehberg, Montana�s U.S. representative, did not, nor did he vote for the budget bill. Rehberg was one of 59 Republicans in the House to vote against the bill.

Rehberg announced he�s running against Tester in 2012.

The coffee is officially burnt...as some have failed to wake up and smell it.