But think of the habitat that could be protected with that amount

[Irrelevant]

RMEF Commits $300,000 to Defeat Colorado’s Proposition 114

MISSOULA, Mont. — The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation committed more than $300,000 toward efforts to defeat a dangerous 2020 ballot initiative to forcibly introduce wolves [...]

www.rmef.org

 

[MNElkNut]

I am confident that RMEF considered that. The introduction of wolves into CO will kill a lot of elk. More than $300,000 worth of habitat could save would be my guess.

 

[TrumpkinTheDwarf]

$300,000 dollars will buy all of 30-40 acres where I live... pretty sure that stopping wolves in CO is a more effective use of the money.

 

[Irrelevant]

100% you won't stop wolves in CO. They're already there, so this is really just a political stunt.

 

[Ben Lamb]

$300,000 dollars will buy all of 30-40 acres where I live... pretty sure that stopping wolves in CO is a more effective use of the money.

Depending on how it's being spent, possibly.

 

[BirdManMike]

They are maybe a decade out from expanding into Colorado, anyhow. Seems like wasted money on both sides of the argument.

 

[MThuntr]

There's a good talk somewhere about the potential genetic repercussions of introducing a robust grey wolf population before they have a genetically diverse Mexican wolf population...regardless of thoughts of wolves on either side there are ecological impacts of our messings around

 

[Bigjay73]

Where are they spending it? I haven't heard boo from any group against the proposition on radio or TV.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Where are they spending it? I haven't heard boo from any group against the proposition on radio or TV.

No idea. Probably digital & TV, and if they're smart, they geo target to bedroom communities on the front range with higher levels of undecideds or swing voters rather than blow it preaching to the masses.

But regardless, subtract 30% for consultant fees.

 

[Nameless Range]

The RMEF has certainly done some things in the past that have made me wonder, but let's not forget that they are still doing amazing work that few others are. I am of the mind that one of the chief virtues of conservation in the moment we currently live in is measured in acres, because those are disappearing fast.


Last week the RMEF closed on Section 1 in the map below in the northern Bull Mountains south of Boulder, MT. Securing access to critical elk habitat to the public to not only one section of land that was formerly private, but to the section to the south that was, prior to this purchase, also inaccessible.

 

[noharleyyet]

No idea. Probably digital & TV, and if they're smart, they geo target to bedroom communities on the front range with higher levels of undecideds or swing voters rather than blow it preaching to the masses.

But regardless, subtract 30% for consultant fees.

Extractive suit & tie influencers.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Extractive suit & tie influencers.

The market dictates the cost.

Personally, I'm glad to see RMEF spend some cash in this fight. I hope it's strategic & thoughtful as opposed to a lot of the other opposition I've seen to this effort. If it's just fearmongering, then it's money pissed away. I think that RMEF is much smarter than that, however.

 

[Dsnow9]

 

[Ben Lamb]

Great approach. No fearmongering, strong message & on point.

 

[Bigjay73]

I just wonder how much the non hunting public knows/cares about CWD. I would think they would mention that they're already migrating naturally, but im no PR rep, but yeah, I like the tone

 

[Ben Lamb]

There are roughly 1 million license holders in CO. Appealing to those folks is the right approach for RMEF, especially considering that a significant portion of front range hunters would likely identify as progressive or liberal. Targeting college educated is smart too (higher likelihood of voting and of being persuadable).

 

[LuketheDog]

As i was eating lunch and reading this thread, I heard my first anti-Prop 114 radio ad, wonder if that was part of what RMEF contributed to?

I also thought this tidbit from the RMEF release was interesting:
“It is also important to understand the same out-of-state environmental groups funding this forced wolf introduction also filed lawsuit after lawsuit to try to stop management of wolves in the Northern Rockies. It took an act of Congress to finally stop them,” added Weaver. “One of those groups also filed a lawsuit just last summer seeking to force the government to introduce grizzly bears into Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona (including the Grand Canyon) and six other states.”

 

[Mudranger1]

its been popping up on the ol FB feed for a couple weeks

 

[Bambistew]

I guess maybe they want to take a different path than the previous, idle sideline approach?

 

[MTGomer]

I guess maybe they want to take a different path than the previous, idle sideline approach?

There’s an old saying. “Better 15+ years later and 2 states away than never” or something like that.



Regardless of whether you support wolves in CO or not, it’s complete BS that someone can put together a ballot initiative with a cost in the millions that will be paid for entirely by a small subset of others, that largely don’t support the proposal, while those proposing the introduction pay nothing toward it.