HR 1581 and the RMEF

[BuzzH]

Rockydog,

I'm sure they have. I'd contact the Supervisors office and also the Regional Office in Missoula for more details.

 

[theat]

I do a ton of my hunting in WSAs and smaller wilderness areas. If it is true that the RMEF supports this bill I will send in my cancelation notice and a strongly worded letter just like I did with the NRA. Don't people realize that the reason the hunting is good in these areas is because it does NOT HAVE ROADS. It also drives me crazy when I hear or read that any new wilderness will eliminate access for sportsmen.

 

[Dinkshooter]

Bummer, what to do if you are a life member?

 

[BuzzH]

If you're a life member...send them a letter explaining how disappointed you are in their endorsement of HR 1581.

You could conclude by telling them to get their heads out of their ass.

I heard some real disturbing information from a real good source about whats behind this move by the RMEF...and I hope its not true. The sad part is, the sign leads me to believe it very well could be.

 

[sweetnectar]

I wouldn't be so quick to crucify RMEF.

In much of the publics view...a WSA sends the message of: we will take the publics land away from them. It is a great way to lock it up and do little with it. No snowmobiles because snowmobiles ruin everything and you suck if you do it. WSAs keep 99% of the population out because most people stay very close to a vehicle. We can let it burn or let it turn into dead fall because dead fall makes great habitat for elk and only stupid hunters hunt in deadfall. Government doesn't want you in wilderness areas so get out. Lock it up and let it rot. Under penalty of such and such stay out or we'll put you in jail and take this and that away from you. This is yours but don't touch. Some New Yorker is telling us what we can and can't do with land in our back yard. etc. There are lots of bad views of WSA in the publics eyes.
Heck, I get all worked up over this crap about needing a filming permit on land you and I own. Don't even get me started.

 

[muleguy]

Rockydog
The one area I know about is bluejoint-the whole area is wsa but the fs has only recommended the west half for wilderness if that helps and get your bags packed.

 

[mtelkhntr78]

Some of the opinons here have followed along my lines of thinking for some time now.

As a life member and former chapter chair for the local RMEF I have become very upset over the last 2 years of the direction this organization. Reading about the RMEF support of HR 1581 put the last nail in the coffin.

I love the idea of being able to support and preserve elk habitat but RMEF has grown into something so much more. The minute RMEF started catering to special interest groups(outfitters, big money sponsors,etc) I became wary. Case in point-The wolf debate. RMEF remained neutral on this position for a good deal of time until the sponsor outfitters said they will not donate hunts/money until RMEF goes anti-wolf. Which they did. Dont read that I am somehow pro-wolf, I am most certainly not, but it was move that put me on edge. I understand completely that less wolves equals more elk and that I approve of. The part I didnt like was the way they caved right away to the money machine. In my opinion it was a step away from being a Conservation organization and a step towards being a political entity.

These are just my opinions but now my money will go to group that works to conserve habitat for average hunter use and not putting their logo on PBR and NASCAR.

Thanks guys for bringing up the issues on HR 1581 and letting us know where to help out with these issues.

 

[Black Hills]

Sweetnectar is right..........one should not over react...........RMEF put out a position statement on 1581........this issue is about more than hunting.........it is about the land and habitat and what is best for it. See RMEF's position...........

RMEF’s Position on H.R. 1581

H.R. 1581 is a bill in Congress specifically affecting “wilderness study areas”
administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and “inventoried roadless areas”
administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Congress set aside these lands up to 30 years
ago for further evaluation and possible addition into the National Wilderness Preservation
System. Over the years, about 100 million acres have been designated by Congress as
official wilderness areas.

Here is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation position H.R. 1581:

1. RMEF supports wilderness designation where science and best information supports
that designation. However, there are currently 42 million acres being held as de facto
wilderness areas—even though the respective agencies have deemed these lands as
unsuitable for wilderness designation. H.R. 1581 serves to begin the public input process
and officially designate specific parcels as either wilderness or other appropriate
designation, such as multiple-use.

2. H.R. 1581 would provide opportunities for public input, common sense and science on
whether specific land parcels should be officially designated as wilderness or released for
multiple-use management.

3. Wilderness designation does not necessarily translate to good habitat or good hunting.
Often, management techniques such as forest thinning, prescribe burning, invasive weed
control and water developments enhance habitat beyond simply “letting nature take its
course.” H.R. 1581 would allow for habitat management in areas where it’s needed.

4. Nowhere in H.R. 1581 are there any provisions to allow energy companies to explore
any of the affected lands. All use of federal lands is required to follow the NEPA process
with ample opportunities for public comment.

5. RMEF believes that federal and state agencies have been gridlocked far too long in
litigation and special interest agendas and lawsuits, with land and habitat suffering the
consequences. We need a balanced approach and collaboration to support federal land
management systems, and not delay the best or most appropriate land-use practices. H. R.1581 can be the beginning of this balanced approach. We urge Congress to make this bill work for the long term good of all our federal lands—wilderness or otherwise.


RMEF President and CEO David Allen said, “Some worry that this bill strips away all
protections and regulations from public land. Those worries are being fueled by rumor
and speculation that this bill, if passed, would essentially start a land run into America’s
backcountry. None of that is true. There’s a process for use of federal lands that must be
followed. But we’ve learned from years of debating over wolves that some groups simply
thrive by creating crises where there aren’t any, and claiming to be mainstream, common
sense-driven and open to collaboration when they’re actually far from it.”

He added, “Nowhere in this bill are any existing wilderness designations stripped away.
This bill calls for action that should have taken place nearly 30 years ago. If there are
land areas that are suitable for wilderness designation, then they should be designated as
such. However, if areas are deemed inappropriate for wilderness, then the best science based land and habitat management practices should be applied.”

RMEF encourages its members to contact their elected representatives and make their
voices heard on H.R. 1581. If it passes, be sure to take advantage of the public-input
processes to determine proper designation and use of the wilderness study areas and
inventoried roadless areas near you.

RMEF calls on all sportsmen to support a balanced, collaborative approach to managing
federal lands in the future.

 

[tjones]

I wouldn't be so quick to crucify RMEF.

In much of the publics view...a WSA sends the message of: we will take the publics land away from them. It is a great way to lock it up and do little with it. No snowmobiles because snowmobiles ruin everything and you suck if you do it. WSAs keep 99% of the population out because most people stay very close to a vehicle. We can let it burn or let it turn into dead fall because dead fall makes great habitat for elk and only stupid hunters hunt in deadfall. Government doesn't want you in wilderness areas so get out. Lock it up and let it rot. Under penalty of such and such stay out or we'll put you in jail and take this and that away from you. This is yours but don't touch. Some New Yorker is telling us what we can and can't do with land in our back yard. etc. There are lots of bad views of WSA in the publics eyes.
Heck, I get all worked up over this crap about needing a filming permit on land you and I own. Don't even get me started.

What a bunch of crap. I have never seen a "lock" on a WSA, you need boots not a quad and if that is considered a lock then you best hunt close to town.

"Government doesn't want you in wilderness areas so get out.",,,Classic.

 

[Black Hills]

mtelkhntr,

I too am involved in RMEF and you are way off base. There is only one reason RMEF got in the wolf fight after many years of sitting on the fence; they finally got a CEO who was willing to fight the fight. When he took the job he told the RMEF he was going to get into this fight, it had nothing to do with outfitters or sponsors. He made the commitment from day one after he took the job.

Since you chaired a chapter you should also know that the creative way RMEF uses the PBR and NASCAR marketing strategies allows the RMEF "to make money" for habitat work. These programs do not cost them money, RMEF actually nets revenue each year from these programs and I applaud them for it. They are also opening elk hunting up to a wider audience and their membership numbers show it.

RMEF is far from perfect but they are working for hunters more today than they have in many years.

 

[lamdilligaf]

. The NRA is expected to be full of slobs, but the RMEF? wow this just blows me away.

RD,
I think your view of the NRA is mistaken. Around here, that "slob" view is generally reserved for natives of Darby.

 

[BuzzH]

lamdilligaf,

The fuggin' NRA needs to keep the hell out of things they've not the first clue about...which is habitat, hunting, and wildlife/land management.

They cant even seem to get the 2nd right.

 

[BuzzH]

Blackhills,

Not to pick on you or anything, and I applaud you for sticking up for an organization you belong to.

With that said, that post of yours is complete crap.

For starters, the RMEF screwed up on the wolf issue. They sided with, and allowed SFW, to speak for them against the Tester/Simpson rider. Only after a political shit-storm did Allen come out and say that the RMEF supported ANY proposal that would delist. But, I'm not stupid, if SFW and the NRA would have had more traction against the Tester/Simpson language, you can bet the bank that the RMEF would have stuck to the statement made by SFW. As much as Allen and the RMEF emphatically stated that they "didnt give SFW our permission to speak for us"...you can sure as hell bet that they were mighty cozy with SFW in regard to opposing the Tester/Simpson language.

The RMEF spun out of that one by throwing SFW under the bus, which was the easiest thing to do to save face. I've no love loss for SFW either, both got what they deserved.

As to HR1581, Allen and the RMEF better start paying attention.

There is science and law behind the Wilderness Act. Perhaps instead of hiring a former media director of the PRCA and Wrangler Jeans, the RMEF should look to hire someone with some education and understanding of wildlife, wildlife management, and heaven forbid...land management. The WSA's in question were inventoried under RARE II and if not because of partisan politics, would already be designated.

Wildnerness does not translate into good hunting? Really? I guess if you dont mind shooting 2-3 year raghorns around a crowd that may be true. Or if you prefer hunting elk once every 8-10 years when you luck out and draw a limited quota tag in a "multiple use" area. If you prefer not hunting with crowds, on a general tag, and want to have a chance at a mature bull...the ONLY place to make that happen is in areas that dont have roads and easy access. Period.

Also, Allen is a fool if he and the RMEF believe that opening up WSA's and inventoried Roadless country wont mean increased extractive uses, including oil and gas development. Apparently, he's been too busy signing checks from the oil and gas industry to read about proposed legislation by Sen. Barrasso from Wyoming that would eliminate the NEPA process requirements for oil and gas development. Even better, the EPA would be hamstrung as well, as the same bill would also make CO2 a non-pollutant.

MTelkhunter78 has it right, this is a sell-out of the mission statement of the RMEF. A sell-out to the fat-assed ATV crowd and big oil sponsors. It has nothing to do with whats best for elk, elk hunting, wildlife habitat, or whats left of the ever-shrinking roadless country.

I propose that the RMEF start worrying about and improving habitat on the 90+ percent of public lands that are already under "multiple use" management. Theres millions of acres of "multiple use" lands that are in much, much, much worse shape and in need of the RMEF's attention than the WSA's and Inventoried Roadless country.

As a matter of fact, why doesnt Allen look out the window of his executive suite in Missoula at water-works hill, Mount Sentinel, and Jumbo...all prime "mutiple use" lands...and elk winter range...infested with leafy-spurge and knapweed. Theres a good place to start, right out your back door.

The RMEF supporting HR1581 is a joke and one thats going to hurt them.

 

[lamdilligaf]

lamdilligaf,

The fuggin' NRA needs to keep the hell out of things they've not the first clue about...which is habitat, hunting, and wildlife/land management.

They cant even seem to get the 2nd right.

Buzz,

I think they have a fair view of the 2nd, but I would agree with you on the rest. That really wasn't my point to RD, however. I was trying to illustrate to him that broad generalizations are seldom appropriate. I know a LOT of damn solid NRA members.

 

[BuzzH]

They need to stick to what they "know"...and that doesnt include wildlife, land management, wildlife management, or HR1581.

They're clueless...at best.

Can you explain how HR1581 is a second amendment issue?

 

[RockyDog]

LamDildo,

Your right, particulary about Darby natives. I know there are solid NRA members including yourself. However i think there is a good number of extremists in NRA that could give a rip less about wildlife or habitat, so who the hell is NRA to get involved in land management?

 

[Black Hills]

BuzzH,

You are clueless about RMEF and SFW.......if you knew how Allen and Peay felt about each other you would realize how ridiculous your statement is. You are listening to the liberal gossip too much.

And yes, there are some wilderness areas that are crap for hunting, so don't preach to me about it. I have hunted for nearly 50 years on all sorts of land and not all wilderness area is that good. The simple fact is the vast majority of mature bulls now days are not being taken on wilderness lands, I wonder why that is. So get your rhetoric straight.

It is curious to see how many folks like you are taking the side of Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity and the other radical enviros and you are quick to cut the throats of other hunters who have (God forbid) another opinion than you.

 

[BuzzH]

Blackhills,

Take a look at who's sponsoring HR1581...and who contributes how much to their campaigns. Follow the money there champ.

You want to talk clueless?

Laffin'...

As to your statement on where mature bulls are being taken...private land and LQ areas. On public land, where the average guy can hunt elk EVERY year on an OTC tag, a vast majority come from roadless and wilderness areas. About 90% of elk hunters are DIY hunters hunting on general tags on public lands.

I dont particularly care to hunt elk once every 8-20 years on properly "managed" multiple use easy access lands. Dont really care to have an oil rig in the background of my field photos either.

 

[tjones]

This is going to get good, pay attention Black Hills, school is about to start.

 

[Black Hills]

Buzz,

You really don't want to start comparing who donates to who in terms of politicians do ya? C'mon man!!!!! There isn't a one of them that isn't "dirty" with somebody's money. That response says nothing but more of the typical games played by politicians. Have you looked at who is supporting Defenders, CBD and Wildearth Justice lately and what politicians they support?

Seriously.........