Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2014, 03:16:06 AM
Posted: Thursday, February 13, 2014 12:00 am
M. DAVID ALLEN/Special to The Press
A recent editorial by Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation life member Mike Muscha caught my attention.
Mike talked about his love for elk, hunting and its future in Idaho because of the growing wolf population. He also called on RMEF to "step up to the plate" and "take action."
Our message is simple. RMEF is in the fight.
In fact, the RMEF has been and remains a leader in the fight for state-based management of wolves. We consistently remain engaged with the state and federal agencies controlling management of predators like wolves, mountain lions and bears.
We also understand the frustration of local hunters and sportsmen who have contributed more to their state agencies for wildlife management than any other single group of citizens.
We also understand why groups like the Foundation for Wildlife Management are cropping up in states as a direct result from the sportsmen's frustration.
As an example of RMEF's leadership in this area, we recently topped $725,000 in lifetime grants to advance the science of wolves, wolf interactions with elk and other wildlife, and wolf management overall.
In just the past two years, RMEF has granted more than $210,000 directly to the state wildlife agencies in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
Why? To help determine how many wolves are on the landscape and where they roam so efforts to help manage or reduce those numbers can be more effective.
In addition, RMEF has also filed legal briefs and served as an intervener to counter endless, frivolous lawsuits by environmental groups seeking to thwart the management of wolves in Idaho, Montana, Michigan, and currently in Wyoming.
RMEF also publicly supports a proposal to remove gray wolves nationwide from federal protection so they can be managed by the states.
The bottom line is RMEF is in the fight and we intend to stay in the battle for better state-based management of all wildlife, including predators.
RMEF will continue to grant money, raise awareness, intervene in support of science-based wildlife management and do what is necessary to continue the cause.
Thanks for being a hunter, Mike. Thanks for caring. Thanks again for your support of RMEF and our shared mission to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage.
We urge all outdoorsmen and women who care about our elk herds in Idaho and elsewhere to be like Mike. Get educated. Get involved.
To learn more about RMEF's work on this issue: www.rmef.org (http://www.rmef.org).
M. David Allen is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation president and chief executive officer.
Post by: Duffer on February 15, 2014, 05:01:11 AM
Wifee & I are pouring extra energy (and some modest donations) into RMEF. It's a worthy cause!
Each of us has to find a way to step up and support these causes.
Either we fight or we roll over. I'm not ready to roll over yet
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 15, 2014, 06:13:40 AM
Post by: Bob33 on February 15, 2014, 06:34:31 AM
Post by: Special T on February 15, 2014, 07:01:34 AM
Post by: AspenBud on February 15, 2014, 07:31:09 AM
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.
Careful now, according to Wolfbait habitat is irrelevant. :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 15, 2014, 07:55:18 AM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2014, 09:22:24 AM
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 too wished they had been more vocal earlier on, I was also pretty disgusted with RMEF. They lost a lot of hunters which I suspect is turning around some since they have gotten more involved.
Post by: steen on February 15, 2014, 10:27:49 AM
Post by: wolfbait on February 15, 2014, 12:29:26 PM
We cut back in putting our $ into RMEF because they were not helping with the wolf situation. Buying land for elk does no good if the wolves come in to them, then what we are doing is "feeding" them. We quit putting in for memberships for a while but did pay for a membership this year. Hopefully they will start fighting harder again!
The RMEF sat on their hands for 14 years knowing what the wolves were doing to elk etc. it wasn't until they started loosing $ that they decided to throw in their :two cents:. At this point I highly doubt there will be any true wolf management until states are allowed to curb wolves as Alaska and Canada do. I think every wolf study has already been done, and it all comes down to controlling wolves, which entitles killing 70% every year.
From a friend of mine in WYoming: In Dubois the Hunting is Bad , and any where that Wolves are . The Areas around Cody are Bad , Elk move as you have seen and read about BUT NO one can Kill an Elk that isn't there .....Not even a Wolf ! Starvation is in the Wind for Wolves . Yellowstone can't support a Wolf population because it's an Artificial Environment ! Wolves won't survive any where in Wyo because of the rifles . Yellowstone is an Island in a Sea of Guns !!!!
Post by: idahohuntr on February 15, 2014, 01:17:38 PM
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.:yeah:
RMEF protects and restores habitat, speaks up for sportsmen on important issues, and is recently becoming more engaged in providing hunting access to sportsmen. Yea, I would say they are the leader of the pack when it comes to conservation organizations that look out for the average sportsmen...can't think of a better group to give my money to.
Post by: Bob33 on February 15, 2014, 01:38:17 PM
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.
Post by: AspenBud on February 15, 2014, 01:42:20 PM
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.
Yep
Post by: Dan-o on February 15, 2014, 02:09:55 PM
I quit the RMEF in utter disgust after being a very early member.
Having said that, they have come around, and I'm now a member again...... I sure hope they use their voice wisely this time around. (And yes, I agree, nobody or no organization gets it right 100% of the time..... but, boy they sure screwed us over on this at first.)
Post by: Special T on February 15, 2014, 02:11:41 PM
Post by: AspenBud on February 15, 2014, 02:22:51 PM
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?
Post by: Dan-o on February 15, 2014, 02:27:53 PM
Different than saying anti-hunter.
And I think he has a point, although I don't see it quite that way.
Post by: Dan-o on February 15, 2014, 02:30:17 PM
Post by: AspenBud on February 15, 2014, 02:35:38 PM
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.
Post by: Bob33 on February 15, 2014, 02:47:43 PM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 15, 2014, 05:29:44 PM
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
Post by: wolfbait on February 15, 2014, 06:11:04 PM
http://saveelk.com/wolf_030.htm (http://saveelk.com/wolf_030.htm)
Post by: trophyhunt on February 15, 2014, 06:25:41 PM
Post by: Special T on February 15, 2014, 06:32:54 PM
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. :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on February 16, 2014, 09:08:55 AM
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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: JLS on February 16, 2014, 06:18:08 PM
Never let an emergency go, with out the chance to capitalize on it!
What, you mean like Big Game Forever/Sportsmen for wildlife?
Post by: JLS on February 16, 2014, 06:19:52 PM
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.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on March 01, 2014, 07:19:20 AM
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.
:yeah: