Is the RMEF still silent on proposed legislation?...and why?

[Knight.54]

I’ve been trying to follow all the actions of western state legislators the past couple of weeks. It’s all hard to keep up with, with new bills up in multiple states aimed at creating borders to make entry and participation more difficult or expensive—especially to non-residents hunters.
It seems obvious that a couple of the bills in Montana in particular that don’t bode well for the future of activities that I am invested in.
I am a long time member of the RMEF and no doubt they are one of the main reasons that elk hunting is what it is today. But my question is why are they silent about the proposed legislation? It seems to fly in the face of the concept of letting FWP manage the wildlife. Are they so beholden to the guiding industry that they won’t say anything to contradict MOGA?

I’m hoping Big Fin or somebody else whose finger is closer to the pulse can explain this to me.

Having more elk on the mountain is gonna help the outfitters and the residents but if you run all the non-resident hunters who can’t or don’t want to pay for an outfitter off the mountain...well let’s just say that’s not in my opinion good for the future...

 

[Lilhowie83]

Randy and others have talked often about this. As a 501C3 organization, the RMEF and organizations like them, can not get involved in politics or they lose their tax exempt status. They are fantastic organizations for boots on the ground work, getting more elk on the mountain, access issues, and habitat projects. But they flat out cannot be involved in politics or lobbying.

 

[Nameless Range]

I don’t know how true that is.

In 2010, the Rocky Mountain elk foundation was opposed to I-161, which passed by a margin of 26,000 votes in Montana. The early version of this year’s outfitter welfare tag bill, I-143, would’ve reversed the people’s will in that instance.

They’ve come out in favor of federal as well as state legislation in the past too. This is not supposed to be a jab at the RMEF, but a few years ago with shoulder seasons were being proposed, though they weren’t legislation, the RMEF and others came out in support of them. I distinctly remember the opposition to shoulder seasons at the time, which were supposed to be a “trial”, arguing that these would become permanent and would only be expanded. Now look where we are. We have bills to codify them into law. It is interesting and worthwhile to look back at who was right and who was wrong.

Just a guess though, is that maybe the RMEF has recognized how dirty and messy getting into political stuff is. To me, the RMEF’s bread and butter is the conservation of acres. They do it beautifully and better than almost anyone else in my opinion. If moving forward that is what they want to stick to, it would be fine by me. Of course I would appreciate their opposition to some of the terrible backsliding bills we are seeing out there, but I understand why they wouldn’t wade into it.

One could you send them a letter and ask them I guess?

 

[Knight.54]

Do their statements about wolf management not fall under the vague definition of “being involved in politics.”?

Why can’t they make a statement similar to those?

Surely.
Surely they have made public statement in regards to proposed wolf management legislation in the past.

Please explain to me how this is different?
Other than the group most prolific in their classified section might have agreed with those statements.

 

[Schism]

Your questions about nonprofits and what they can and cannot do will likely be answered here:

Frequently asked questions about the ban on political campaign intervention by 501(c)(3) organizations | Internal Revenue Service

Frequently asked questions about political campaign intervention by section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations.

www.irs.gov

 

[gilbe]

Your questions about nonprofits and what they can and cannot do will likely be answered here:

Frequently asked questions about the ban on political campaign intervention by 501(c)(3) organizations | Internal Revenue Service

Frequently asked questions about political campaign intervention by section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations.

www.irs.gov

Thanks for linking the FAQ. The quoted FAQ below seems to be the most applicable.

"Can a section 501(c)(3) organization state its position on public policy issues that candidates for public office are divided on?

An organization may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office as long as the message does not in any way favor or oppose a candidate. Be aware that the message does not need to identify the candidate by name to be prohibited political campaign activity. A message that shows a picture of a candidate, refers to a candidate’s political party affiliations, or contains other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography may be prohibited political campaign activity."

I listened to Randy's podcast the other week and am still trying to digest what 501(c)(3) can and cannot do. I'm looking to learn more and will continue looking in on this thread.

 

[LuketheDog]

A 501C3 can back or oppose legislation like these hunting bills or the CO wolf ballot measure. These are not political measures but they do get politicized, which can make a nonprofit's involvement confusing to people.

 

[Knight.54]

Is a legislator considered to be a perpetual candidate for this discussion?
I guess they are perpetually running for re-election....

 

[Ben Lamb]

501 (C)3 organizations can expend up to 10% of their budget on lobbying activities. After that, they have to either file a new entity such as a (C)4 or another "social good" entity. If they want to support or oppose specific ballot initiatives, etc, then they have to file as an independent expenditure, either at the state of FEC level.

I know that RMEF is weighing in behind the scenes at the state and federal level, and I do know that they are engaged in MT through the Sporting Coalition, which tends to focus on habitat conservation funding more than other issues. With the loss of their Government Relations staffer to the BLM (Great pick, btw), RMEF isn't as staffed up to take these issues on, and there are a bunch of states that would gladly take all the RMEF help they could give, so they triage as best as they can, and they rely on their friends. RMEF is a giant in conservation, but they're not over-staffed and run a pretty lean operation considering all that they do.

RMEF also has a different role to play in a lot of instances. Where groups like BHA & State Wildlife Federations are out & vocal on support or opposition, RMEF often times takes a quieter approach, through grasstops contacts (major donors to politicians, large businessmen, etc). Ideally their approach would be both grassroots & grasstops, but when you're working with what you got, I think we recognize their work behind the scenes, and politely urge them to activate their membership. I've seen bills go from 100 mph to dead and in the ditch from 1 RMEF alert.

RMEF is doing what they can, with the resources they have. Polite notes to state chapter leaders encouraging them to get more publicly involved on specific issues are a good way to express your concerns.

 

[Knight.54]

Thanks Ben.
Insightful response.
Thank you for your attention to, dedication and effort towards the cause.

 

[brownbear932008]

When are we gonna just let some things go and quit attempting to force organizations to choose a side. IMO RMEF has interest on both sides of these arguments and if you can't see that than your blind. They shouldn't have to choose a side and nor should any business or non profit for that matter, that's part of the problem in America today.

It's pretty simple if you feel they don't support you or what you believe in move on. I think they are making a very wise choice to remain quite and not choose sides and more organizations should follow that in today's world. That organization does more for elk hunting and access in a day than any other in a year on average. Let's hope it stays that way and people attempting to force them to make crazy decisions like this only hurt the end goal of the organization.

Bottom line it's the best organization out there for elk and our wildlife hands down and always has been. They(WE) benefit from outfitter dollars just as much as average Joe dollars. People shouldn't be trying to force them to "make a statement" on their stance on political issues.

 

[ccc23454]

"RMEF’s mission is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage by protecting, conserving, restoring, and enhancing natural habitat."

Tag allocations and license cost structure isnt directly their mission, you could argue hunting heritage but no state has cut tags unless for herd management issues, there all being used its just by whom. If a resident, a rich landowner, or a diy nonres use a license its all heritage you likely just disagree with it since its not to your benefit. The RMEF shouldnt get involved in matters like these other than simple general public statements or providing accurate information to members to allow them to make informed decisions.

 

[Knight.54]

I’m not trying to force anything

I’m trying to understand the whys

 

[Ben Lamb]

"RMEF’s mission is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage by protecting, conserving, restoring, and enhancing natural habitat."

Tag allocations and license cost structure isnt directly their mission, you could argue hunting heritage but no state has cut tags unless for herd management issues, there all being used its just by whom. If a resident, a rich landowner, or a diy nonres use a license its all heritage you likely just disagree with it since its not to your benefit. The RMEF shouldnt get involved in matters like these other than simple general public statements or providing accurate information to members to allow them to make informed decisions.

They do get involved though. I've been on both sides of issues with them. In 2017, they were advocating for a constitutional amendment in MT for the right to hunt & fish. My folks had issues with the language, so we opposed the bill. It was friendly opposition with RMEF, and we routinely discussed ways to make the bill better, and kept those lines of communication open, especially since we were together on almost everything else. RMEF has a solid reputation for advocating in respectful, bipartisan ways to bring folks together. I think that's absolutely the right thing for them to do.

If it wasn't for RMEF, we wouldn't have had the Great American Outdoors Act. Their work on the federal budget has been outstanding for conservation as well. I may not always agree with a position they take, but their reasoning is usually rock solid, and their approach should be replicated throughout the US.

 

[44hunter45]

I've found the RMEF (and BHA) to be very accessible when I reach out to them with policy questions or stated my opinion.
I left the RMEF long ago over wolf politics. Eventually their policies and mine aligned again.
Before I came back, I asked the leadership a lot of questions about where the organization is heading.
Before I joined BHA, I sat with Land Tawney and did a deep dive on the whole "Green Decoy" business.

That level of participation helps keep the NGOs from following the path of the NRA.

Go through the "contact US" on the web page or call them and tell them you want to talk to someone about this. Reach out to your RD and let them know this matters to you.

 

[MTGomer]

RMEF is a mega organization capable of wielding great influence through their membership, that could form policy to benefit elk and elk hunters.

They take the safe route and say they are just a habitat organization and there is no question that they do great things on the habitat front.

That is a choice they make. It isn’t because someone went to work at the BLM. If they wanted to be in the day to day fight at the capital alongside the much smaller Montana Wildlife Federation, they would be.

The shoulder seasons they support have made the Grant Creek elk herd that is visible from their headquarters parking lot into a shadow of what it once was.

They’re not a bad organization, but I think if you are looking for somebody to actively and vocally rally their membership to push back against things like the all out push to privatize elk hunting in Montana, you’re going to have to look elsewhere.

 

[Knight.54]

I’ve been reading lots pertaining to this topic the last few days.
I’d like to clairify a few things.

I never said or implied the RMEF was inactive on this topic, I asked why they are silent.
they are.

nonprofits have an obligation to be transparent.
This is a basic tennent of being a non profit
Transparency and accountability.


....lack of transparency can veil.....
Conflicts of interest



ethical guiding principal....that nonprofits not be operated for the benefit of private interest.

I’m not trying to burn the house down.
I’ve said before, I give and for years have given to the RMEF

I just feel that they do cartwheels to talk about wolves. Yet their official opinion is that there are no topics that we as advocates for elk should tackle right now.

and yet one of the most vocal and prolific voices for elk conservation is crying out that current proposed legislation is the most significant change to elk management in one particular state in 30 years and that it will lead us down a path that we will never change.

 

[shoots-straight]

I would guess that they aren't working against HB 505 because MOGA is for it. They try and not make waves with Outfitters as they are all members too.

 

[Straight Arrow]

They try and not make waves with Outfitters as they are all members too.

If you look at the last pages in the RMEF BUGLE magazine you will see a list by state of outfitters with levels of donations noted. Outfitters in Montana have contributed much financially to RMEF. That cannot be denied.

 

[shoots-straight]

If you look at the last pages in the RMEF BUGLE magazine you will see a list by state of outfitters with levels of donations noted. Outfitters in Montana have contributed much financially to RMEF. That cannot be denied.

Money talks, and the Bullshit walks.