RMEF and DOW

[6speed]

As I posted in the Idaho legislature update thread there is a bill that would reduce the ammount of testing for CWD in domestic elk by 90% and change the standards for inspection from once a year to every five years. Idaho put the strict testing in place when elk farmers pushed for single fence operations. Now the want them removed but still don't want double fence operations. RMEF was made aware of the situation and responded by stating they would not get involved as it was an issue for the sportsmen of Idaho to deal with.

Within hours of reading the email about not getting involved RMEF posts on their Facebook page that they have entered into intervenor status against the environmental agencies that are going to court to stop IDFG from killing more wolves in the Frank.

Now I am left wondering is there just not enough money in other Idaho issues? Is the RMEF getting EAJA funding for this intervenor status? Has the RMEF decided to take a page out of the DOW playbook and use wolves as a fund raiser? I know from attending our local committee meetings the only concern is the % of profit from the banuet but is that the only driving factor of the entire organization?

 

[ERSS]

Many issues and limited funds, I think they made the right choice with biggest potential for immediate and lasting impact on elk and elk hunting. Having spent a fair amount of time with Idaho RMEF members, I believe if given a choice, most would want their dollars backing the wolf issue. Just my opinion.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Great questions. I do feel rmef has been forced to become active on wolves. Perhaps not so with cwd? We all know elk ranching is going to bite us on the ... sooner or later.

 

[Big Fin]

As I posted in the Idaho legislature update thread there is a bill that would reduce the ammount of testing for CWD in domestic elk by 90% and change the standards for inspection from once a year to every five years. Idaho put the strict testing in place when elk farmers pushed for single fence operations. Now the want them removed but still don't want double fence operations. RMEF was made aware of the situation and responded by stating they would not get involved as it was an issue for the sportsmen of Idaho to deal with.

Within hours of reading the email about not getting involved RMEF posts on their Facebook page that they have entered into intervenor status against the environmental agencies that are going to court to stop IDFG from killing more wolves in the Frank.

Now I am left wondering is there just not enough money in other Idaho issues? Is the RMEF getting EAJA funding for this intervenor status? Has the RMEF decided to take a page out of the DOW playbook and use wolves as a fund raiser? I know from attending our local committee meetings the only concern is the % of profit from the banuet but is that the only driving factor of the entire organization?

I can answer a few of the questions/concerns.

As far as RMEF deciding not to be involved in the game farm issue, I am not sure what was requested, or who was asked to be of assistance. I can say that RMEF has a long track record of opposing regulations that would pose a threat, or increase threats, to wild elk or other wildlife. RMEF has been opposed to game farms due to the risk they represent for wild elk.

As to RMEF seeking some sort of compensation under EAJA, that implication is incorrect. RMEF has been one of the big supporters of changes to the EAJA. I am a member of the RMEF Policy and Government Affairs committee. In the last few months we have signed on to letters asking Congress to reform this law to make it harder for groups to abuse it and receive compensation. I can assure you that RMEF deciding to engage in an issue is not driven by any sort of benefit under the EAJA (and there would be none requested as an intervener in this case).

As a non-profit organization under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3), RMEF is restricted in its political activities. Lobbying and other activities are heavily restricted for groups seeking non-profit status under that Code section. You will see some non-profits engage themselves in legislation and lobbying of elected officials, but do so at risk to their non-profit status.

Not saying non-profits cannot be involved in issues, especially from a standpoint of educating people and policy makers on the issue. But, direct lobbying on a piece of legislation is usually a good way to get in trouble. I am not an expert on where that line of "lobbying versus informing" is drawn in the sand, but as a general rule, non-profits are very careful in how they proceed.

Most often, non-profits will engage their members to tell them of the issue and ask the members to contact their elected officials. That route eliminates the concerns about lobbying a specific legislator. I am not sure if that was done in this case, but is often the route used by RMEF.

Intervening in legal action is not prohibited by the non-profit rules. You don't intervene in a lawsuit until such time a bill has become a law. There are no restrictions once the issue leaves the Legislative body and becomes a topic of the Judicial branch. That is why you often see non-profits more involved in courts than in legislatures. Some may feel abandoned, but the rules governing non-profits kind of steers the bus that direction.

You will see industry trade associations lobbying for changes, such as the ones in ID. Those groups often are not qualified 501(c)(3) organizations. They are often formed under different code sections, allowing them to lobby heavily. Often times, that does not result in a level playing field.

As far as the wolf topic where RMEF recently intervened with IDG&F, here is some perspective of the RMEF policies. I can provide this perpsective, as I get to sit in on a lot of policy position discussions.

The RMEF position on wolf policy/management is that we will advocate for state management of wolves. The entire process of formulating, submitting for approval, and then implementing state wolf management plans was a huge task. It was the biggest hurdle states had to clear in order to gain control of wolf management.

RMEF does not support anything that is outside the bounds of the state wolf management plans approved by the USFWS. It would be foolish to risk loss of state control, after all that has been invested to gain state control.

Hunters and state agencies have fought for almost two decades to gain state control of wolves. We feel it is important to support state efforts to manage all wildlife, including wolves, within the bounds of what the law allows and within their state wildlife management plans.

In the case of wolves in ID, the action IDG&F wants to take is within the bounds of the ID Wolf management plan that was approved by the USFWS. If the courts feel otherwise, that is how they will rule.

It is not news to anyone that the wolf is a topic that is hard to please many people. No matter the position of RMEF, there will be critics. Even with our policy that is to follow the state management plans, some complain it is too soft on wolves and some claim it is too harsh. If we believe that wildlife is a state management purview, as RMEF believes and I suspect most of us believe, supporting the rights of states to implement these USFWS-approved management plans is the only logical position.

As a local RMEF volunteer committee member and as a Board member, I am interested in learning if your local committee is told or directed in a manner that results in your perception below. I can assure you that such is not the case, but if volunteers and committee members are left with that perception, then we need to know about it and fix that perception.

I know from attending our local committee meetings the only concern is the % of profit from the banuet but is that the only driving factor of the entire organization?

There are thousands of volunteers in RMEF, all working hard to help fund the millions of dollars that get reinvested in projects. Every dollar is helpful and appreciated, whether the committee has a 100% net profit from a banquet, or a 20% net profit. All effort of every volunteer is appreciated, regardless of what the net % is at the local banquet.

"Banquet net percentage" is not the only driving factor of the organization. The effort of volunteers such as you and your fellow committee members are why RMEF is growing in terms of membership, project investment, public access, and ability to accomplish our mission.

I understand that at times, some might feel frustrated with an RMEF decision. We have a great staff who is leading the organization in a great direction. I can assure you they do all they can to represent elk and our members on amazing number of topics and requests. We strive to do all we can, as stated in our mission; for the future elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Randy brings up an excellent point regarding lobbying versus engagement on issues outside of the legislative realm. 501 (C) 3's can lobby up to 20% of their budget/time & the reporting requirements are significant.

Groups usually take a very conservative approach to lobbying and RMEF is one of the most conservative I have seen. Getting RMEF to engage on state level lobbying is darned near impossible, and I think that's a good thing both for the people working on legislative issues and for RMEF.

 

[ERSS]

Thanks for the inside info Randy, and the work you do in many arenas on behalf wildlife and our hunting heritage.

In response to the claim, "I know from attending our local committee meetings the only concern is the % of profit from the banuet but is that the only driving factor of the entire organization?", here are a few thoughts from my perspective.

Over the last decade and a half there has been a change in banquet philosophy, with I think pressure put on the RD's to have more efficient and profitable banquets. The use of years of statistics to know what to expect for a banquet as far as attendees, total dollars spent, net profit, etc. has become an integral part of banquet planning. Just like any fund raising endeavor, the goal is to maximize dollars raised for the cause. In this case the more net dollars raised, the more that can be done for he future elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage. Granted there needs to be a balance. If banquets aren't enjoyable and have good merchandise and decent odds of winning items, attendance will go down. This of course would also negatively effect net dollars raised. Finding that balance is difficult. Especially in committees that remember the good old days. I can remember banquets in St Anthony ID 15+ years ago with 30+ guns and tables and tables of raffle items, for a relatively small group of attendees. When banquet philosophy changed to quickly for this group, the committee withered and banquet and chapter went away. There are strong committees out there that flourished and despite the challenges continued to put on amazing banquets with great attendance and lots of dollars toward the mission ( Jeff Day in Mountain Home comes to mind ). I guess the bottom line for me is, as a life member, banquet goer and donor, I want the RMEF to function as efficiently as possible to put the most dollars on the ground. If that drops my odds a little of winning a gun at a banquet, I am OK with that. It is a tough balance and the brunt of it falls on the RD's trying to please two masters, the committee and RMEF in Missoula. I believe the current leadership is Missoula is the best it has ever been, and playing a leading role as an assertive and intelligent conservation group. I don't agree with everything that comes out of the RMEF camp, but right now I would put them up against anybody else in regards to similar organizations when it comes to money management and decision making.

Again, just my thoughts and perspective.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I know from attending our local committee meetings the only concern is the % of profit from the banuet but is that the only driving factor of the entire organization?

Unequivocally, no. As a fifteen-year former banquet committee member and chair for three years, I can only point out the distinction between the micro and macro levels of RMEF or any such organization. The micro or the grassroots in this case is intent on expending energy and resources at the local level to raise money for elk and other wildlife habitat and habitat enhancement. At the macro. national or state level, the broader concerns come under purview. For the first couple of decades of existence of RMEF, an apolitical stance worked nicely. However, with the wolf issue, game farms, high fence hunting, brucellosis and a number of other issues, RMEF has had to stand up for elk by establishing ethical, scientific, and political positions. Right or wrong, it has been necessary and has been effective in influencing outcomes.

At the local or micro level, I suggest the most effective results come from the concern for maximizing net financial profit. Certainly it's appropriate to submit informed information and opinions to the higher up, macro level, but that is a personal choice, typically not a banquet committee choice.

 

[6speed]

Thanks for the replies guys. Bigfin I have to admit I was glad you spent the time you did to respond. It did clear up a few things. As for the local aspect I fully understand the need to produce funding however all things come at a cost.