Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Sucks for snowmobilers, Mt bikers and ORV users!

[npaull]

In my opinion, we can't have ENOUGH wilderness. It is totally beyond me how any hunter could be upset at the preservation of more wildlife habitat. I support almost any organization with the stated goal of habitat conservation. And by the way, the Nature Conservancy is definitely not anti-hunting, even if not every single thing they do is designed to open up more hunting territory. They have had multiple partnerships with REMF and DU, and if you think those groups are anti-hunting, you may have gone a bit too conspiracy-theory to be reasoned with... not trying to bash anyone, I'm just saying it weighs on us as hunters to be cognizant of the fact that preservation of wildlife ultimately relies on habitat conservation, and there are instances where compromises make sense. Reducing human intrusion to an area by making it a wilderness is NOT an inherently anti-hunting move.

[DOUBLELUNG]

As long as we have the habitat, we will all be able to argue forever about who gets to harvest the game, when, how many, and by what method.  No habitat, nothing to argue about.   

[high country]

In my opinion, we can't have ENOUGH wilderness. It is totally beyond me how any hunter could be upset at the preservation of more wildlife habitat. I support almost any organization with the stated goal of habitat conservation. And by the way, the Nature Conservancy is definitely not anti-hunting, even if not every single thing they do is designed to open up more hunting territory. They have had multiple partnerships with REMF and DU, and if you think those groups are anti-hunting, you may have gone a bit too conspiracy-theory to be reasoned with... not trying to bash anyone, I'm just saying it weighs on us as hunters to be cognizant of the fact that preservation of wildlife ultimately relies on habitat conservation, and there are instances where compromises make sense. Reducing human intrusion to an area by making it a wilderness is NOT an inherently anti-hunting move.

just because an area is wilderness does not mean it holds more animals. I guarentee you there are more deer and elk per mile in the area near the pendorille river then 20 miles away in the salmo priest wilderness. often we forget how important logging is to hunting......logging and wilderness don't mix. we do a lot of thinning over here on the east side and it is great for bucks and bulls.....tough to hunt, but great cover.

keep in mind the impact on the economy if an area is designated......all that trickles down.

I did nt want to say it, but if you want to save elk, hunt indians.

[colockumelk]

No comment on the last part.  I'll just say this.  If you want to keep the Indians from slaughtering our game.  Close roads.  We all know they don't go far from the roads.  Limit road access, limit Indian and Poacher access.  Thus saving our elk and deer. 

[Clark33]

In my opinion, we can't have ENOUGH wilderness. It is totally beyond me how any hunter could be upset at the preservation of more wildlife habitat. I support almost any organization with the stated goal of habitat conservation. And by the way, the Nature Conservancy is definitely not anti-hunting, even if not every single thing they do is designed to open up more hunting territory. They have had multiple partnerships with REMF and DU, and if you think those groups are anti-hunting, you may have gone a bit too conspiracy-theory to be reasoned with... not trying to bash anyone, I'm just saying it weighs on us as hunters to be cognizant of the fact that preservation of wildlife ultimately relies on habitat conservation, and there are instances where compromises make sense. Reducing human intrusion to an area by making it a wilderness is NOT an inherently anti-hunting move.

just because an area is wilderness does not mean it holds more animals. I guarentee you there are more deer and elk per mile in the area near the pendorille river then 20 miles away in the salmo priest wilderness. often we forget how important logging is to hunting......logging and wilderness don't mix. we do a lot of thinning over here on the east side and it is great for bucks and bulls.....tough to hunt, but great cover.

keep in mind the impact on the economy if an area is designated......all that trickles down.

I did nt want to say it, but if you want to save elk, hunt indians.

I believe the naturally occurring wildfires in wilderness areas (that usually are not suppressed) do a better job at opening up the canopy and providing new undergrowth for deer and elk than logging does.  Fire is the best way to basically push the reset button on a forest, i dont really follow your logic behind logging and hunting going hand in hand.

The only reason logging is important to hunting is the miles of roads it provides people to drive, which isn't a good thing in my opinion.

[colockumelk]

Clark33    Awsome point.  100% true.  Commercial logging doesn't do anything to help out hunting.  In fact it hurts habitat for our elk and deer.  The RMEF does some logging and thinning to open stuff up for forage and does some burning.  This helps out.  But commercial logging doesn't help out our hunting. 

Disclaimer.  I am not against logging at all.  It is vital to our local economy.  The land that the FS logs is their property.  They can do whatever they want with it.  I'm just saying commercial logging isn't helping our elk and deer out. 

[Clark33]

I too am by no means against logging on a sustainable scale, but if we are strictly talking about improving deer and elk habitat, there are much better ways.