RMEF is in the fight

[AspenBud]

I would lump DU, Phesant forever,  Etc into the same kind of group.

DU is anti hunter? Pheasants Forever? You can say that with a straight face? Seriously?   

[Dan-o]

He said not pro hunter.

Different than saying anti-hunter.

And I think he has a point, although I don't see it quite that way.

[Dan-o]

P.S.   RMEF's mission statement does include a phrase about ensuring our hunting heritage, so I take that as being pro-hunter.   

[AspenBud]

He said not pro hunter.

Different than saying anti-hunter.

And I think he has a point, although I don't see it quite that way.

If the point is they don't push predator management as much as they do habitat, okay, I'll buy that. But if anyone thinks better predator management is going to help pheasants overcome thousands of acres of CRP being tilled under every year they would be quite wrong. DU has saved more than one puddle from being drained and PF more acres from being tilled, the predator argument would be an utterly moot point in those areas without their efforts.

[Bob33]

I've read on Hunt WA from several members that WDFW has been secretly releasing wolves in Washington for years, and that their biologists and management have been almost completely infiltrated by college bred, anti-hunter, pro wolf plants.

Given that, I am certain that RMEF would be thrilled to know that they have such great power and influence that their involvement could have overcome these forces and stopped or severely altered Washington's wolf plan in the face of such adversity.

[pianoman9701]

RMEF continues to be one of the nation's leading advocates for elk and elk hunters. Habitat benefits not only elk but many other species as well.

I don't disagree with that at all, Bob, but when the WA wolf plan was still unfinished and I requested, along with many others, that RMEF get involved and testify before the WDFW, there wouldn't do it. At that time they said it was a political fight and they wouldn't get involved.

I will accept as fact that RMEF was not as active as they could have been on the issue of wolves. However,

1. I do not believe their involvement in wolf issues and in particular state wolf plans like Washington's would have had a significant impact on their inevitable outcomes.
2. They are not nor ever have been pro wolf.
3. They have secured and helped preserve prime habitat that would have been lost forever.
4. They have recognized their shortcoming on wolves, and responded accordingly.

If you are aware of an organization with as much influence as RMEF that has no flaws and policies I agree with 100%, I would be glad to support them as well.

I agree with all of that, Bob. And I remain a member of RMEF even in light of their inaction with regards to the wolf plan

[wolfbait]

If I remember right the RMEF and IDFG came out with the same conclusion at the about the same time, wolves were decimating the game herds.

http://saveelk.com/wolf_030.htm

[trophyhunt]

I am not trying to derail this thread, or turn it into a native bashing subject. But, I would really love to see the RMEF start a fight on tribal hunting, if they care about elk, tribal hunting should be on their list of things that effect elk populations.  I am glad to hear them involved with the wolf fight!

[Special T]

I think Dan O got my point. They are NOT against hunting the just support habitat and those issues. I know that is a fact with DU, it is a conservation/habitat only organization. It doesn't get involved in ANY management decisions.
I'm not saying those organizations aren't beneficial to hunters, but in my mind there is a HUGE difference between being a Hunting supporter and doing something that benefits it as a byproduct.

If you look at how these Non profits operate on a financial level you can see how they can help "habitat" but not necessarily hunters.  DU Helped breach several dykes for "Habitat" but it didn't really help ducks, and arguably salmon. It did hurt hunters however. RMEF helped itself by standing on the sidelines. HOW? Because elk were doing great in ID and MT. It is easier to plead for help when there is an emergency than when everything is going good. I know I sound the pessimist and i'm OK with that. IF you follow the $ and understand how it works I think you get the most honest answer.

If you think RMEF is worthy of your support so be it. They however are NOT on the right side of this issue now because they figured it out, its because it benefits the financially. 

[AspenBud]

I think Dan O got my point. They are NOT against hunting the just support habitat and those issues. I know that is a fact with DU, it is a conservation/habitat only organization. It doesn't get involved in ANY management decisions.
I'm not saying those organizations aren't beneficial to hunters, but in my mind there is a HUGE difference between being a Hunting supporter and doing something that benefits it as a byproduct.

If you look at how these Non profits operate on a financial level you can see how they can help "habitat" but not necessarily hunters.  DU Helped breach several dykes for "Habitat" but it didn't really help ducks, and arguably salmon. It did hurt hunters however. RMEF helped itself by standing on the sidelines. HOW? Because elk were doing great in ID and MT. It is easier to plead for help when there is an emergency than when everything is going good. I know I sound the pessimist and i'm OK with that. IF you follow the $ and understand how it works I think you get the most honest answer.

If you think RMEF is worthy of your support so be it. They however are NOT on the right side of this issue now because they figured it out, its because it benefits the financially. 

You are correct, they are habitat organizations dedicated to making sure hunters have places to hunt and that their quarry has the right conditions to exist. In a lot of ways they are the guys in the middle, most anti hunting groups view these organizations as habitat organizations with a pro hunting agenda. With the extremes on both sides they can't win. Meanwhile they keep doing their work so both sides can bicker over predators that would not have a place to eat and live as well as game animals that would not have a place to eat and live without their efforts.

Side note, it is dangerous to generalize with habitat organizations. Some go to bat for hunters more than others, but it's usually when someone wants to ban hunting of the species whose habitat they are trying to save and/or expand. Their habitat work often helps support the case for hunting. Particularly when someone wants to ban hunting for the sake of banning hunting. They can also generally speak better about habitat conditions, something that can be used to support predator management. If they can show the habitat is robust and the game they try to help out is still struggling in the face predators that's huge.

Anyone can walk into an area where there used to be elk and say it's prime habitat that should still have them, but unless you have credible groups like RMEF in there with their own bio's documenting that not many will listen. 

[JLS]

Never let an emergency go, with out the chance to capitalize on it!

What, you mean like Big Game Forever/Sportsmen for wildlife? 

[JLS]

RMEF continues to be one of the nation's leading advocates for elk and elk hunters. Habitat benefits not only elk but many other species as well.

Once land is subdivided, it's pretty much gone forever.  I am a proud supporter of RMEF.

[HUNTINCOUPLE]

RMEF continues to be one of the nation's leading advocates for elk and elk hunters. Habitat benefits not only elk but many other species as well.

Once land is subdivided, it's pretty much gone forever.  I am a proud supporter of RMEF.