Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits

RMEF has done some great things, no doubt. But just seems to me they choose there battles politically not based off of doing the right thing for the public.
 
My rebuttal: Montana elk.
Also, didn't you make the same, behind the scene's claim about RMEF helping guide the selection of the current FWP director?
Where are they on corner crossing? Prescriptive easements? I just read an article in Bugle this morning titled, "Access is Conservation"

Everybody makes mistakes. ;) zbut given the names we were looking at (people with absolutely no gov't experience outside of lobbying or being elected) I think they did what they could with what they had at the time.

National BHA, National Wildlife Federation, etc haven't really weighed in elk in MT either. Their local chapters & affilialtes have though.

RMEF's access model is to purchase land & easements to increase access. Staying out of corner crossing & prescriptive easements makes sense if your model is to work with landowners in order to create more access. Corner crossing & prescriptive easement issues are high-conflict areas. That doesn't erase their importance, but if you are a land trust (which RMEF is), why would you alienate the class of people you are working with to purchase land and easements?

Same goes for TNC, TPL, etc.
 
Why is Tabor so resistant to limiting the mule deer season in Region 2? Good grief mule deer are up against it.
Opportunity is cheap if we impact the populations so bad that there's few or nothing left.
I keep hearing the phrase "without hurting the resource" and I'm starting to think that phrase is pretty subjective.
 
Everybody makes mistakes. ;) zbut given the names we were looking at (people with absolutely no gov't experience outside of lobbying or being elected) I think they did what they could with what they had at the time.

National BHA, National Wildlife Federation, etc haven't really weighed in elk in MT either. Their local chapters & affiliates have though.

RMEF's access model is to purchase land & easements to increase access. Staying out of corner crossing & prescriptive easements makes sense if your model is to work with landowners in order to create more access. Corner crossing & prescriptive easement issues are high-conflict areas. That doesn't erase their importance, but if you are a land trust (which RMEF is), why would you alienate the class of people you are working with to purchase land and easements?

Same goes for TNC, TPL, etc.
MT BHA has been absolutely HAMMERING this issue, drumming up tons of grass roots support.

And TNC, TPL, etc... don't have a mission that includes "to ensure the future of elk..."
 
MT BHA has been absolutely HAMMERING this issue, drumming up tons of grass roots support.

And TNC, TPL, etc... don't have a mission that includes "to ensure the future of elk..."


yes, the MTBHA has been doing awesome work. The national chapter hasn't. National groups have a national forcus. RMEF is a national group. That's my point.
 
Anyone know why Ken McDonald is not presenting for wildlife? I don’t believe he is there.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
113,606
Messages
2,026,539
Members
36,244
Latest member
ryan96
Back
Top