Montana Wildlife Foundation...WTF?

[Fatrack]

Hey Guys,

What do you all know about this outfit? After a brief introduction to this outfit via their website, it appears to me they are a good group looking out for our (Hunters, Fishermen, Outdoor Enthusiests) best interest. But, I recently recieved a letter (email forward) that was written by David Allen, CEO of the RMEF to the MWF regading an editorial piece released by thier Wildlife Committe Chair. I have not found the editorial on line yet, but from David's response, it sure doesn't seem like this group has our interests the states elk populations at the top of their list.

Here is a link to the response from the RMEF.

http://www.rmef.org/NR/rdonlyres/CF66259B-74DC-4E32-B728-958F4814FB57/0/MWF_RMEF211.pdf

 

[Fatrack]

Ok, I found the MWF letter

http://ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/viewpoint/article_849a0f6a-2443-11e0-9cf0-001cc4c002e0.html

I guess I need to digest this a little....

 

[----]

Allen`s response is more hot headed and over the top, in my opinion. I wouldn`t look into it too much, personally.

Both organizations are working hard to get this whole cluster---k worked out, albeit in different styles, and you should support both.

Pay attention to Ben`s posts on here, and what MWF is doin. They`re definitely on our side.

 

[mdunc8]

I don't know much about either group. After reading most of what Ben posts on here, at least he, don't know much about his group, seems to have a good head on his shoulders. I tend to agree with most of what he's pushing for in the legislature. If nothing else, he's made me much more aware of what's going on up in Helena.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hey guys,

We're drafting a response to David's piece, but for now here's a google link showing where MWF is on wolves, what we've been working on, and how we feel about the issue. MWF Wolves

 

[6speed]

I couldn't get the link to open on my phone but it googled to the article you wrote that was published in field and stream. I assume the MWF stance is similar and I think your article hit the nail on the head. I can't help but wonder if the RMEF is over compensating for not taking a stand on wolves earlier in an effort to regain some of the members they lost over the issue.

 

[BuzzH]

I think the truth was spoken by the author of the MWF article. Its ridiculous and unproductive for any conservation group to be pushing legislation to end-run the ESA. It wont happen, and its a wrong-headed approach any way you slice it.

6-speed nailed it in regard to the RMEF, they sat on their sorry asses for a long, long time on the wolf issue...not so much as a peep. Then, when their membership started to drop, they saw a way to regain what they lost, and perhaps even GAIN membership by finally speaking out against wolves. I dont put much merit into a johnie-come-lately group whining after most of the water is already under the bridge.

Its not just this issue that RMEF has failed to address in the past, theres others. I've always given them a pass on their lack of concern about most issues, because their mission is/was to preserve habitat more than become involved in every wildlife issue that hits Montana.

IMO, the RMEF is struggling to identify itself, or at least reidentify itself, to placate the anti-wolf crowd. Its a dangerous road to travel for the RMEF to become a more political group than to continue with the work that got them where they are today...conserving elk habitat.

At the very least, David Allen should be smart enough to align his organization with the groups that have been involved in the wolf issue the longest, and who also know how we got to where we are today, and more importantly, see a clear and practical vision on how we proceed from here.. Its been eye-opening to see the RMEF struggle with this issue...and also how defensive they've become in such a short time. I'm not optimistic that David Allen is the best captain for the ship.

 

[6speed]

I know the RMEF lost a lot of people in my area due to the wolf issue. I'm on the banquet committee and we are still working on getting the numbers back up. I still think they are one of the best out there as far as conservation goes and that's why I still volunteer my time but the kind of missed the mark on this issue.

 

[angels2011]

I'm with Randy11, support both.

Preface my rant below with the knowledge that most hunters I know do not have points in multiple states and that most hunt within a few miles of their homes, don't peruse internet hunting sites and don't have the time, patience to read everyone's different mission statements on hunting, fishing, habitat management, etc.

The RMEF isn't perfect. They were slow to take stands on multiple use and wolves and this caused quite a few people I know to drop their memberships (me included) but to trash them after all they have done for habitat is crazy. BTW, I am a member again after I came to my senses.

MWF does great work as well but isn't perfect either. I'm not sure they are connected to the average hunter. Saying that hunters, in general, are for wolves is a little presumptuous and inaccurate as far as I can tell by talking to AVERAGE (some might say uninformed) hunters like myself daily.
I don't think the average hunter I talk to daily would approve (if they had a vote) of their Pittman Roberts monies, license fee monies or any tax monies to go to the reintroduction or protection of wolves.
SSS is what the majority of them talk about whether MWF likes it or not.

I kinda rambled on there, just some thoughts that were barraging my simple mind all at once. I would like to say that I just joined MWF and have been a member of RMEF for years as I believe they both do great work in different areas.

I'm tired now after that much thinking, must take nap....right after I check the BAYED thread.

 

[Mudranger1]

Buzz, I'm kind of with you on the David Allen leading issue. Now I haven't been around very long so I don't know too much of these western issues but I have read a couple of letters from him now that while I may agree with his side on the issue the way he goes about expressing his concerns or thoughts to me doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the group. Instead of using his energy to solve problems IMO only seems to cause more conflict with the situation.

 

[Big Fin]

Its ridiculous and unproductive for any conservation group to be pushing legislation to end-run the ESA. It wont happen, and its a wrong-headed approach any way you slice it.

Agreed. But, after sitting in with the biologist that manages elk in our local area in Montana, I am not sure what the solution is. With what I explain below, I am open to ideas I never thought I would consider.

Hunters in this part of MT are having no statistical impact on the most important aspects of elk populations - cow survival and calf recruitment to the adult population.

Hunters have an impact on one segment of the population - bulls. We affect bull age and total bull numbers. If hunters were removed from hunting the Gallatin and Upper Yellowstone drainages, the impact on elk herds would be almost zero, with the exception of the impact on bulls.

The trend lines of the Upper Yellowstone elk numbers from eight years ago are now the exact trend lines of the Gallatin herd. And the trend lines of the Gallatin herd from three years ago are now the trend lines of the Madison. In three years, I suspect the Madison will look like the Gallatin today, and in spite of that, political pressures demanded a continued cow season over there this winter.

So, what do we do, when wolves are taking between 130-270 cows and calves out of the Gallatin, when hunters took 11 in 2009?

Wyoming is not going to move on their plan. The court is not going to change their mind. The wolves are going to keep eating elk in the Upper Yellowstone, Gallatin, and Madison Valleys.

We have a ridiculous Elk Management Plan, so influenced by a few vocal landowners, that we had to hammer elk numbers down to the minimums over the last few years. Just in time for a burgeoning wolf populations.

The EMP was built around a single predator system, and has levels so low, that the impact of predators can be significant. To the point of being the primary concern on populations of those reduced levels.

We have a legislature that wants further reductions in elk numbers in some units.

With all of that, I see no solutions. Honestly, I am ready to give up and resolve that elk hunting in my back yard has about five more years, if that.

So, as much as I never thought I would say this, we need some other options. The ESA and the incorporated language of the reintroduction agreement in this instance is a failure. A failure of a great degree. Hunters set the table for the wolves and the flukiness of the ESA and the reintroduction agreements are now paying the toll with a currency of reduced hunter opportunity.

I have never been an anti-wolf guy. I supported the agreement that was agreed to. I knew there would be struggles and lawsuits. But, this process is taking guys like me from the "we can live with wolves" camp and moving us over to the "something has to be done and I don't give a damn how it happens" camp.

I doubt a change in the ESA is the answer. It is too big and too far reaching of a law to be removed.

Can we statutorily exempt the gray wolf from the ESA? I think so. Does that open the door for a ton of other ways to circumvent? Probably.

What other option is there?

Living in my own ignorant world, I was not too worried about the impacts elk were having, until last week. It is a disaster. FWP knows they have no options to do a thing about wolves. They can only manage one predator - hunters. When the one predator they can manage is not affecting the population, the efforts of biologists is fruitless.

All that is a preface for my reasons to defend RMEF for trying to find new ways to solve the wolf issue. I do not know what their motives are for what they do, but do know they are wanting to see something done about wolf impacts on elk. Reasonable when they have the word "Elk" in their name.

I do know that they understand that with less elk hunting opportunity, there are less elk hunters. With less elk hunters, there are fewer RMEF members. None of that is good.

I do know RMEF has done more for elk in my back yard, and in the many states I hunt each year, than any other group. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and support them as they advocate for elk, elk habitat, and elk hunting/hunters.

I think they should defend themselves when they feel they are being scrutinized publicly. When they are wrong they should fess up. When they are right, they should defend.

I have not read the letter from MWF that started the spat. I suspect there may have been some valid criticisms. Hopefully it is not a case of hyper-sensitivity on either part.

When one decides to criticize, the critic must have equally pure standards that they expect of others. RMEF, or any of us, can probably point to actions by MWF that we did not agree with. Does that mean RMEF should have publicly taken MWF to task? Hell no and I don't know where they ever did.

MWF is doing a lot of great work in Montana. Ben Lamb who posts here is a great guy. His work is doing a lot of good to protect the hunting in Montana that is under attack every day in Helena.

Yet, MWF should not be too bold and go after others, when their parent group, NWF is a complete bail out on issues related to science-based fish and wildlife management. MWF would be best served to unaffiliate with NWF.

So long as they are affiliated with NWF, they will always be fighting this battle of the NWF parent being out of touch and chasing the dollar, the same as they claim RMEF to be. Pot meet Kettle.

Having spent many years on land exchanges, acquisitions, easements on winter ground, etc., the one organization that was always there was RMEF. MWF knows that.

I can tell you that without RMEF, the Taylors Fork, Royal Teton, Gallatin I and Gallatin II Land deals would not have happened. MWF knows that also. Some who now enjoy those lands are too young to remember.

Regardless of the validity of the claims made of RMEF by MWF, I question why MWF leadership would call out an organization that has done so much for Montana wildlife. RMEF is a partner that we need as much now, as ever.

They will make mistakes, the same as all groups. But, when one measures the totality of RMEF accomplishments, you would hope that groups could disagree with them, without creating more conflict in the process.

Whatever started this spat, and how ever it ends, the losers are the members of the groups, as their leaders spend time and effort defending their positions. Time and effort badly wasted when so much of what we love is at risk.

Enough already.

 

[6speed]

Well I guess that about sums it up. The frightening thing that goes along with the elk predations is the amount of moose predations in Idaho there are areas where moose populations have been so affected that even with no hunting the populations will most likely not recover. That isn't a possibility it has already happened.

 

[shoots-straight]

I think that the frustration MWF is feeling, is the fact that RMEF supported Rehbergs DOA, bill to take the wolf off the endangered species list. The only hope we had, was with the Baucus, Tester Bill. Rehberg chose to use the issue, (as did RMEF) for his own gain. He's gambling that neither bill will go anywhere, and he can claim that his didn't, because of Tester. His town hall meetings were nothing more than campaign rallies orchestrated at tax payer expense. I hope voters are smarter than I think they are.We've already cut hunters out of the harvest in half the districts that surround the Root. The remaining 2 areas have lots less harvest from hunters, than just a couple of seasons ago. We upped the lion kill, and are double of what we had last year. We don't have Griz, but our lions made up the difference. Griz numbers will remain at least were they are, so there's no less pressure from them.



. Sense the legislature convened, I've noticed a lack of effort, on game issues,from either the SFW, or the RMEF camps. Think of the clout fighting some of these bills, with both organizations on our side. It's in their charters, so where are they? Go Figure. I just wish, we all did what was "just the right thing to do" for the right reasons, than all this underhanded political crap.

The goal of Rehberg was to make Tester appear to be pro wolf. What do you suppose would have happened to the Baucus, Tester wolf bill had Rehberg, and his gang supported it? Most of the reasons RMEF gave for not supporting the Baucus, Tester bill, are incorrect. I'll let Ben explain, although I would rather people new the facts and could see how RMEF is using this.

Your right Fin, we really need to move forward, problem is, some groups are just posturing for a better bottom line.

 

[drahthaar]

Ahhhh, so politics is still deciding outcomes that biologists should be deciding.

Same play, just a different and more grand of a stage!!

Don't you guys see, this is the part where the average guy that 6speed mentioned starts to shut down, his eyes glaze over, his hearing goes bad, and his IDGAS anymore alarm goes off. At every fricking turn the voice of the average hunter gets more silent. No matter how loud you shout, no matter how many emails you send, speeches you give, no matter how many groups and clubs and organizations you join, no matter how many new and great organizations start up, POLITICIANS DON'T GIVE A DAMN. They're going to do what helps themselves and all their @$%-guzzlin' buddies in that giant circle-jerk they have going on in Helena.

I honestly don't see how we as hunters, sportsmen, public land outdoor enthusiasts, etc, can win in this. The big cannons on what should be the same ship are lobbing shots toward each other, doesn't take a sailor to figure out what happens next.

Its no wonder SSS starts to seem like the only recourse.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree with the frustration of the wolf issue...and the facts BigFin posted regarding the elk populations are correct.

Heres the part where I dont agree with what the RMEF is doing NOW.

Where was the RMEF on the wolf issue in the beginning?

Where was the RMEF when the EMP was being discussed?

Where was the RMEF when the bitterroot elk were taking a pounding?

Where was the RMEF when the MTFWP was still issuing 2500 elk late cow tags in Gardiner?

I could go on and on about the issues they stayed out of in regard to elk management.

I'll give you a perfect example of how little the RMEF does when it comes to getting involved in "elk management".

Just a few years ago, the MTFWP catered to some whining landowners about the elk herd that winters just north of Missoula Montana...and within sight of their national headquarters. The landowners were screaming "too many elk" and a late hunt was authorized almost within a subdivision of Grant Creek.

Many of the local sportsmen in Missoula were well beyond pissed and tried to get that hunt stopped, mostly because there wasnt a biological reason for it. One would think, that if there ever was a time for an organization to step into the fray...killing elk on winter range within sight of your front door would be it.

Yet, not a friggin' peep out of the them, and of course the hunt turned into the mess it was anticipated to be. Landowners go to "choose" who could hunt, a wounded elk ran through the subdivision with a swinging leg, etc.

Now, they choose to jump into the wolf issue and pretend they know better than groups that have been involved from the start? They werent active participants on many issues for a long time. Honestly, I dont fault them for it, their concern used to be securing elk habitat. I cant think of anything better to do for elk, for hunters, and for the states they work in. Absolutely awesome work and they should stick to what they know. You dont hire a plumber when your car breaks down.

Now they seem to want to be a player at the table, and not only a player but they feel they now hold all the chips. I got news, there are groups out there much better suited to fight things at the capitol. Instead of supporting those groups, they throw in with Rehberg and his half-baked ideas of upending the ESA? Really? Thats the statement your group wants to make when the finally decide to "do something"...Wow!, thats special.

Sounds akin to something SFW would do....

 

[angels2011]

What BigFin said is spot on.
If RMEF, MWF and sportman's groups can't get together as one voice we have no chance.
Whatever our decision is, whether it's to back a certain bill or SSS we better decide soon or it won't much matter.

 

[BuzzH]

angels2011,

Be prepared to be disappointed....

You're dreaming.

 

[Drake4]

Yet, MWF should not be too bold and go after others, when their parent group, NWF is a complete bail out on issues related to science-based fish and wildlife management. MWF would be best served to unaffiliate with NWF.

So long as they are affiliated with NWF, they will always be fighting this battle of the NWF parent being out of touch and chasing the dollar, the same as they claim RMEF to be. Pot meet Kettle.

Having spent many years on land exchanges, acquisitions, easements on winter ground, etc., the one organization that was always there was RMEF. MWF knows that.

I can tell you that without RMEF, the Taylors Fork, Royal Teton, Gallatin I and Gallatin II Land deals would not have happened. MWF knows that also. Some who now enjoy those lands are too young to remember.

Very well said. I couldn't agree more. RMEF will continue to get my $$ along with Pheasants Forever, DU, etc.. I'm still skeptical on MWF and probably always will be as long as they are affiliated with NWF.

 

[mdunc8]

What BigFin said is spot on.
If RMEF, MWF and sportman's groups can't get together as one voice we have no chance.

I agree with Buzz. Don't hold your breath.

There's too many stakeholders with differing opinions too appease everyone. Heck, not all hunters are in complete agreement about what should be done. Until people start using the best science and learn to compromise on these important issues, we're going to keep running in circles. There's too many crazies on both sides with too much money and time on their hands to let the biologists and managers do their jobs.

 

[angels2011]

I don't remember saying I thought it would happen, just that it should. Either way, if it doesn't we will all have to start the SSS option or say bye bye to elk hunting in MT in our lifetime.
We can all blame WY, RMEF, Obama, (insert your own villain here) to make us sleep better at night though.

How many times did I get attacked by a wolf this year, had to protect myself each time!!! I didn't say that, did I?