'Montanans for Effective Wildlife Management"

[bigskyblueman]

SFW is out trolling for fellow travelers. We can defeat this initiative without consorting with this odious SFW and its' contemptible sock puppet spokesman, next November.

 

[theat]

Renewed my Montana Trapping Association membership the other day and got a few others to join.

I don't like anything about SFW, but I am certainly not surprised that they are involved with this effort.

 

[ERSS]

SFW / BGF - in my opinion, given their history in Utah and on the national scene, would reflect negatively on any collaborative group they were a part of. Their ethics and honesty have been repeatedly called into question, and they have failed to do anything to adequately defend/repair their reputation. The phrase "actions speak louder than words" has never been more true than in the history of SFW. Certainly agree with and respect Ben's position.

 

[shoots-straight]

SFW / BGF - in my opinion, given their history in Utah and on the national scene, would reflect negatively on any collaborative group they were a part of. Their ethics and honesty have been repeatedly called into question, and they have failed to do anything to adequately defend/repair their reputation. The phrase "actions speak louder than words" has never been more true than in the history of SFW. Certainly agree with and respect Ben's position.

So if SFW becomes an affiliate of "Back Country Hunters and Anglers" would that sway you make you avoid them?

The group taking the fight to the anti's is the one I posted. By just using your vote as a no will not counter act much. This thing has to be fought with a conjoined resistance.

This group has hired professionals to engage the enemy with. They need money as much as a no vote.

Should they have turned the money down from SFW?

 

[ERSS]

"Should they have turned away the money down from SFW"

Yes, I believe ( and I think it is a well supported belief ), that SFW is looking for any opportunity to find an opening to improve their standing and influence in states outside of Utah, and have targeted Montana, Idaho, Arizona, etc.. Once established, I believe they will continue the use of underhanded means to exploit the states wildlife resources for their own agenda, which is not in the best interest of the sportsman.

I am a member of Back Country Hunters and Anglers, as well as RMEF. What are your thoughts of RMEF as an organization? Do you think they would partner with SFW on any project?

I agree with and support what your organization is trying to accomplish and wish you the best of luck. I understand desperate times call for desperate measures. It is an individual choice as to where each of us, or the organizations we support, draw the line. We disagree on where that line should be drawn.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Don't get me wrong, I am not and never have been a member of SFW. I just think that whatever group you are affiliated with you should be concerned with this bill.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Also - SFW will affiliate with real groups about the same time Robert shoots fire out of his arsehole.

 

[shoots-straight]

I agree wholeheartedly.

Also - SFW will affiliate with real groups about the same time Robert shoots fire out of his arsehole.

You haven't seen me after eating my wifes Mexican delight.:W:

To be honest, when this group first formed, I expressed my concerns about them receiving any help from SFW. They needed help, and this group threw a bunch of money and resources at them.

It's not my group, I'm just supporting them because the fights going to go through them.

If this was about banning hunting on public lands would we all shun a group that was with us because SFW threw money their way?

 

[tjones]

If two MWF affiliates don't get along do they both cut ties with the MWF?

Ben seems to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[ERSS]

"If this was about banning hunting on public lands would we all shun a group that was with us because SFW threw money their way?"

Something that extreme would probably result in many people, myself included, re-evaluating their position and making that "lesser of two evils" decision.

I am concerned about SFW gaining a toehold in Idaho and Montana and then continuing on the path that is their history. New billboards are going up here in Idaho promoting SFW and it makes me pretty nervous.

 

[shoots-straight]

"If this was about banning hunting on public lands would we all shun a group that was with us because SFW threw money their way?"

Something that extreme would probably result in many people, myself included, re-evaluating their position and making that "lesser of two evils" decision.

I am concerned about SFW gaining a toehold in Idaho and Montana and then continuing on the path that is their history. New billboards are going up here in Idaho promoting SFW and it makes me pretty nervous.

You don't consider banning trapping on public lands "Extreme"?

 

[Nameless Range]

If an organization aligns with you on a specific issue, it does not then follow that you should join forces with that organization despite the fact that when it comes to everything else, they are scum of the earth. We see though, that for some, the risk of aligning with those who would harm public land hunting is worth saving trapping on public lands. For them, to each their own.

I think a worthwhile analogy would be:
If a candidate were running for office, and an organization donated a large sum of money to that candidate, should the candidate keep that money despite the fact that the organization donating the money was diametrically opposed to the candidate in terms of everything else that matters? Or should the candidate say, "No thanks, I need help, but on principal I refuse to take it from you".

I would say the latter is the correct decision. On both principal and long term tactics. I could see certain scenarios where the benefit outweighs the risk. But I don't think this is one of them. If the future of hunting on public land is the concern, I would be far more worried about SFW gaining a foothold in MT. We've already seen what they can do.

You are judged by the company you keep.

 

[Eric Albus]

How about the NWF? Checked out who they are supported by?...careful about the snakes you want to sleep with or stomp on.

 

[shoots-straight]

You are judged by the company you keep.

You might be judged that way, but there's a lot of narrow minded people doing the judging then.

You should be judged by your actions. NO?

 

[ERSS]

Well stated Nameless, could not agree more.

 

[ERSS]

Actions are the basis of the judgement of SFW

 

[tjones]

Sometimes we should do things for the greater good.

 

[BigHornRam]

Good grief! You wonder why I don't post much on this site anymore Shoot's? This thread is a good example of why.

 

[tjones]

Good grief! You wonder why I don't post much on this site anymore Shoot's? This thread is a good example of why.

And here I thought it was because you owed him beer.

 

[shoots-straight]

Actions are the basis of the judgement of SFW

Ah, but were not judging SFW here. Get past that. We're judging Montanan's for Effective Wildlife Management. Gesh!

BHR, you and I finally are in agreement. Mark that down on the calender.

 

[elkantlers]

"If this was about banning hunting on public lands would we all shun a group that was with us because SFW threw money their way?"

Something that extreme would probably result in many people, myself included, re-evaluating their position and making that "lesser of two evils" decision.

WOW, I guess if it doesn't directly affect me then Screw it!

If you don't see that this will effect public land usage for more than just trappers then you need to wake up.

Has RMEF or BCHA thrown their hat in the ring to help Montanan's for Effective Wildlife Management keep public ground open for all? If they haven't, I would hope they do.