Opinion pieces like this bug me

sacountry

sacountry

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
833
Location
NW Montana
Hunters don't get gaslighted again

Never mind the misuse and overuse of the term gaslighting, but also the twisting of what these two gentleman think RMEF should be vs what it always has been (which is technically gaslighting RMEF). I've definitely called in to question my vote for GG in large part because of some of the things stated in the article, but cooler heads have to prevail.
 
I agree that this letter would be better off not written. It does nothing to add to the discourse, and I think the authors are wrong to focus their ire at the RMEF publicly.

That said, I agree with the authors that the elk foundation cannot be counted on to speak up for the DIY Hunter in Montana, and that is disappointing. As a land conservation organization they are arguably the best in the business and for that I will continue to give them money.

One of the things that I don’t understand is how likely UPOM is to be successful in their lawsuit. But imagine as a thought experiment, that tomorrow they are. Instantly, no limited entry elk tags in areas that are over objective means this fall it would be likely (following this spring’s aerial surveys) that the Elkhorns, The Breaks, the Highwoods, the Beartooth WMA, and many other districts where decades of elk management has occurred would be undone in a season.

Seems damn strange to me that they would just monitor that, and not intervene. As someone who lives in and plays in the Elkhorns and has volunteered time toward their management, the 1,400 acres the RMEF amazingly brokered the purchase of only 2 years ago in the Elkhorns , would lose its shine a bit to me if, as UPOM desires, the Elkhorns were wide open to general tags come September. It took a lot of local collaboration and time to get the Elkhorns to where they are - One of the reasons they are the most sought after elk permit in the state.
 
An interesting article, always wish footnotes were attached, or at least notations. Anecdotally, as a non resident Montana hunter, I'm aware of some of the Governors moves, but not all. Wish the authors had at least put in parentheses (bill xxx).
As to the RMEF, joined them when they started, quit them several times, currently a member. If indeed the article is accurate, I'll need to reevaluate my support, but I need more information. Big fan of a number of projects they accomplished in Oregon. Leaves me wondering.....
 
Nameless Range said:
I agree that this letter would be better off not written. It does nothing to add to the discourse, and I think the authors are wrong to focus their ire at the RMEF publicly.

That said, I agree with the authors that the elk foundation cannot be counted on to speak up for the DIY Hunter in Montana, and that is disappointing. As a land conservation organization they are arguably the best in the business and for that I will continue to give them money.

One of the things that I don’t understand is how likely UPOM is to be successful in their lawsuit. But imagine as a thought experiment, that tomorrow they are. Instantly, no limited entry elk tags in areas that are over objective means this fall it would be likely (following this spring’s aerial surveys) that the Elkhorns, The Breaks, the Highwoods, the Beartooth WMA, and many other districts where decades of elk management has occurred would be undone in a season.

Seems damn strange to me that they would just monitor that, and not intervene. As someone who lives in and plays in the Elkhorns and has volunteered time toward their management, the 1,400 acres the RMEF amazingly brokered the purchase of only 2 years ago in the Elkhorns , would lose its shine a bit to me if, as UPOM desires, the Elkhorns were wide open to general tags come September. It took a lot of local collaboration and time to get the Elkhorns to where they are - One of the reasons they are the most sought after elk permit in the state.
Click to expand...
I hear you about RMEF participation in legislation. I was looking for their input on a couple of issues last session, but then it was pointed out to me that as a land conservation organization, they risk alienating their donor base when they take positions on political issues even if that issue hits at their core objective. They rely on other organizations that are true PACs to fight in Helena.....but I wouldn't be surprised if RMEF does get involved just more behind the scenes.
 
Something that folks tend to forget is that no organization can be everything for everyone.

I would rather have RMEF focus on securing access to public lands and protecting elk habitat than spending resources and attention on disagreements over how wildlife on those lands are managed.

Mission creep and loss of effectiveness is a real problem for conservation organizations.
 
Gerald Martin said:
Something that folks tend to forget is that no organization can be everything for everyone.

I would rather have RMEF focus on securing access to public lands and protecting elk habitat than spending resources and attention on disagreements over how wildlife on those lands are managed.

Mission creep and loss of effectiveness is a real problem for conservation organizations.
Click to expand...

I agree regarding mission creep. The part where it gets confusing to me, is looking at the other things they intervene on, as well as their mission statement.

Their voice on some things but not others makes it very difficult to discern their priorities.
 
Gerald Martin said:
Something that folks tend to forget is that no organization can be everything for everyone.

I would rather have RMEF focus on securing access to public lands and protecting elk habitat than spending resources and attention on disagreements over how wildlife on those lands are managed.

Mission creep and loss of effectiveness is a real problem for conservation organizations.
Click to expand...
For sure.....not too mention human population creep. RMEF has their hands full working against a tidal wave of population shift towards the intermountain west. I like knowing that someone is working towards protecting habitat essentially against all odds.
 
I left the RMEF in the 1990s over their stance on wolf re-introduction. I was not the only member to pull out. Now I am back as a lifer.

I learned a couple of things from this.
1) When you take your ball and go home, you end up on your front porch with a ball, ALONE. All the other kids are out there tearing it up.
2) Issues you will die for evolve. I was in the "Over my dead body" camp on wolf re-introduction. The wolves are here now, and I'm not dead.
My position on wolves today is essentially what the RMEF was saying in the 1990's. I think that neither the RMEF nor me anticipated the influence of The Center for Biological Diversity and their disciples.

I'm not denying that Montana has elk management issues, but elk need habitat more than management. I don't see the RMEF having mission creep as much as mission refinement. As much as the whole "get them drunk and open their wallets" fundraising model galls me at times, the RMEF is good at raising money and acquiring habitat. The same people that claim (falsely) that RMEF acquires land for their big donors to hunt are the same people who bitch about American Prairie. The difference being that RMEF doesn't hold land, they broker transfers to the public.

Mr Conyngham and Mr Shaw should be more concerned about all the Gianforte clones in US Congress that just set the session rules to make it easier to disperse Federal lands. If those lands are divested, they will end up in the hands of the same billionaires buying bulls now.
 
Nameless Range said:
I agree regarding mission creep. The part where it gets confusing to me, is looking at the other things they intervene on, as well as their mission statement.

Their voice on some things but not others makes it very difficult to discern their priorities.
Click to expand...
Would it be better if they just stayed out of all issues? I suspect the staff discusses each issue and decides if the risks are worth the rewards. That is complete speculation however. So yeah, I agree it would be nice to have some clarity on that. Might be worth calling them
 
rogerthat said:
Would it be better if they just stayed out of all issues? I suspect the staff discusses each issue and decides if the risks are worth the rewards. That is complete speculation however. So yeah, I agree it would be nice to have some clarity on that. Might be worth calling them
Click to expand...

I’m not trying to be a smart ass here, but if the absolute decimation of elk management and elk populations that have taken decades to develop, is not some thing they will stand up for, and that is not hyperbole, it’s not clear to me what their priorities are. I view them as a very good land trust organization. Maybe the best.

They certainly jump in on wolf and gun issues.

Put another way, if this lawsuit were successful, I think a strong case could be made that it would be the biggest detriment to elk and elk hunting since Montana brought them back from The brink nearly a century ago.

It’s fair to reach out to them. I’m not here to bash on the RMEF. As much as anything, it’s confusing.
 
Last edited:
Nameless Range said:
I’m not trying to be a smart ass here, but if the absolute decimation of elk management and elk populations that have taken decades to develop, is not some thing they will stand up for, and that is not hyperbole, it’s not clear to me what their priorities are. I view them as a very good land trust organization. Maybe the best.

They certainly jump in on wolf and gun issues.

Put another way, if this lawsuit were successful, I think a strong case could be made that it would be the biggest detriment to elk and elk hunting since Montana brought them back from The brink nearly a century ago.

It’s fair to reach out to them. I’m not here to bash on the RMEF. As much as anything, it’s confusing.
Click to expand...
They're not the best land trust, not even close, but they're not at the bottom by any stretch either.

Why guns and wolves are so important to them but actual elk management isn't, is a head scratcher for sure. I've postulated before, but they're trying to fill a niche, be a leading conservation org in a space that doesn't have any others. Hard right, out-of-state, wealthy, disconnected, outfitter sympathizing, private wildlife ownership agnostic (at least to a degree). I'm sure they have some analytics to support this path.
 
If the gaslighting is RMEF telling folks they stand up for all elk hunters and the current Republican administration saying they stand up for elk hunters, then it does feel like a fair use of the term, and criticism.

Greg is definitely telling everyone that hunting is great and we are making it better while we know the opposite is true.

I'm not sure what RMEF has done behind the scenes but publicly they haven't made a good case for themselves.
 
wllm said:
If the gaslighting is RMEF telling folks they stand up for all elk hunters and the current Republican administration saying they stand up for elk hunters, then it does feel like a fair use of the term, and criticism.

Greg is definitely telling everyone that hunting is great and we are making it better while we know the opposite is true.

I'm not sure what RMEF has done behind the scenes but publicly they haven't made a good case for themselves.
Click to expand...
Seems an easy sell to the uninformed to say they’re making the hunting better if you’re converting hard to draw controlled hunts to general seasons. A bunch of folks won’t be bothered to understand what that really means and will just take it as a chance to go get that bull they deserve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Utah CD2 special election (Chris Stewart’s district)
Replies
2
Views
812
Aperventure
A
steveshuntn1
Never thought it would be me!
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
7K
huntinbows
H
KipCarson
A Broken Paradise
Replies
5
Views
2K
BradA
BradA
Big Fin
NRA On The Hot Seat - Exposed or Attacked?
31 32 33
Replies
646
Views
84K
Sytes
Sytes
Mainewoods
First elk hunt last season
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
BullyBull
B

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
114,022
Messages
2,041,467
Members
36,431
Latest member
Nick3252

Share this page

Back
Top