02350FC
Member
When you see a private land project that doesn't give public access right? There are a lot of those. I get protecting those but it's nice when our dollars can be used by us.
RMEF projects
- Thread starter 02350FC
- Start date
Magnum Sherpa
Well-known member
I would say the majority of those projects on private land are winter range, critical migration corridors, etc. They help the elk populations that inhabit adjacent public lands. I think RMEF is a wise steward of the financial resources it receives from members.
bobbydean
Well-known member
I think I understand your rant. RMEF did this in the 80's in New Mexico. Big donors had access to ranches of RMEF. Lost my support forever.
jryoung
Well-known member
This, and to date the RMEF has secured or improved access to 1.1M acres. I would venture to guess that public access is a bigger priority going forward, in addition to protecting critical habitat.
JoseCuervo
New member
Also, it depends on what State you are looking for.
If you are looking for projects in Montana, they are everywhere.
If you are looking in Idaho, they don't seem to spend much effort. (and likely $$$$)
Here is the link.
http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/WhereWeConserve.aspx
You can filter by State and by time frame.
If you are looking for projects in Montana, they are everywhere.
If you are looking in Idaho, they don't seem to spend much effort. (and likely $$$$)
Here is the link.
http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/WhereWeConserve.aspx
You can filter by State and by time frame.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
Don't forget, those big donors money brought you a big chunk of those 1.1 million acres of access.
Got a specific instance you can cite? I would be interested in knowing.
You sure about that? I would be interested to know what property you're talking about.
I hear these comments occasionally and when I ask for the example they are referring to, either they can't provide one or they have their "facts" very mixed up. If you provide examples you are referring to, I would bet I have some facts that would clear any issue you have.
I'm pretty new here but I've been working my way through the unfiltered podcast and just this past week listened to the RMEF founders talk with Randy, probably old news to you guys but listening to how they navigated through growth of becoming an agency in the 80's and self identifying mistakes they made and owning them just made my support for the agency they've grown into stronger.
OriginalOscar
Active member
Are you talking about conservation easements which keep land from development? Even if you can't hunt it; the benefits are real and good for sportsmen.
Been a member off & on a long time.Mostly on.
I have seen a lot of lands saved in my time by them.Some lands are just in conservation easements & agreements.
Some of those landowners have even let me hunt their private lands,most not.
I do find tons of critters on nearby public grounds due to their work with RMEF.
One local easement I hope to maybe use to my benefit if I draw that hunt this year.
I have seen a lot of lands saved in my time by them.Some lands are just in conservation easements & agreements.
Some of those landowners have even let me hunt their private lands,most not.
I do find tons of critters on nearby public grounds due to their work with RMEF.
One local easement I hope to maybe use to my benefit if I draw that hunt this year.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
I guess I have taken less issue with RMEF doing some projects on private land. Mostly because when I go to their events here in MN or WI, I see and talk with the folks who are contributing the majority of the money, and most of them have only hunted elk a handful of times and most of them have never chased an elk on public land (or do way less than I do), but they seem to foot the lion's share of the bill for all of us.
It may be different in the major elk states, but RMEF exists in more states that don't have elk than those that do.
It may be different in the major elk states, but RMEF exists in more states that don't have elk than those that do.
bobbydean
Well-known member
Big Fin, that was 30 years ago. I think the ranch was south of Datil or in the upper Gila. I honestly cannot remember the ranch name.
There was a similar incident with the HH ranch in Datil in 2004.
I do not think this was the incident I was remembering, but similar anger was expressed.
There was a similar incident with the HH ranch in Datil in 2004.
I do not think this was the incident I was remembering, but similar anger was expressed.
belshawelk
Well-known member
Being a public land hunter most all my life and now also being a private land owner who does still hunt public, I see both sides of this. I had posted in the past on this issue only to cause a fight with those who "hate" private land owners. Simply put, there are some bad landowners just like bad public hunters. The key is to respect both sides. I have been an RMEF member for a while and their approach to both sides is right on. Just last week I went to my property to check it out after the winter. What did I find? Bottles and cans from someone who has been trespassing with their atv tracks all over. My property is in a key spot to allow access to thousands of acres of public land. Every time I try to open it up to public access to go thru to either recover animals or hunt it is this same disrespect. How about both sides start to work together for better for OUR animals. Remember without private landowners providing winter habitat and summer water the very elk and deer we all like to hunt on public may not be there.
RMEF has owned one ranch in its existence, and it was in New Mexico; the extremely generous donation it received from the Torstenson Family in the form of the 100K+ Double HH Ranch between Datil and Magdalena. As a condition of that donation, RMEF was required to operate it as a working cattle ranch and fee hunting operation, the same as it had been operated when in the hands of Mr. Torstenson. RMEF accepted those conditions and placed a conservation easement on the 100,000+ acres to permanently protect it as wildlife habitat.
RMEF sold the ranch, subject to the conservation easement, in late 2011. In the interim, RMEF did as required under the terms of the gift and operated the ranch as a working cattle ranch and a fee hunting operation. During that time, all bull hunters paid full rate, whether they were RMEF donors or not. The cow hunts were donated or used by RMEF chapters as fund raisers.
The Double HH Ranch sale has been leveraged into one of the largest endowments in the hunting-conservation world, allowing for the earnings to be used for many access projects in the last five years. Tens of thousands of acres of new public access has been provided as part of that endowment and that is just the start of good things it will provide.
Yeah, RMEF took some heat for accepting the donation with the conditions that came with it. Mostly from people who don't understand how conservation easements and restricted donations work. And a few who just want to complain. There was also plenty of accolades from those who understood what benefits would come from RMEF accepting that donation.
As a Board Member who has seen the benefits of that work and that generosity from the Torstenson Family, I am glad RMEF agreed to accept the donation and keep their eye on the long-term goal, even when there was criticism of the donation. As a result, the ranch itself, all 100,000+ acres have been conserved for wildlife and will never be developed. Through the graciousness of the family who allowed RMEF to sell the land and convert it into an endowment, thousands of acres will be opened to public hunting access each year, in addition to the funding it provides for youth recruitment, hunting heritage and education projects, elk relocation, and a host of other benefits that come from the earnings that endowment creates.
RMEF holds no ranches, holds no big chunks of land. If someone tells you that, they are speaking out their vent. RMEF will at times temporarily take title of a property as the conduit for transfer to a state or federal agency.
The private land and "exclusive to high dollar donor" rumors are just that, rumors.
If anyone has a specific example, please provide it.
T
tjones
Guest
bobbydean
Well-known member
Hey Big Fin.
Did you ask if big donors were given a hunt with no fees.
About to be banned. That would be a realistic plan. I disagree with it.
I have totally respect your opinion. But are you are speaking on faith or did you check?
I agree the ranch has done great things for convservation.. My point was the initial year.
I totally respect you. I think you put too much in a organization without checking.
My opinion and I am comfortable with it.
I do not have any RMEF contacts!
Did you ask if big donors were given a hunt with no fees.
About to be banned. That would be a realistic plan. I disagree with it.
I have totally respect your opinion. But are you are speaking on faith or did you check?
I agree the ranch has done great things for convservation.. My point was the initial year.
I totally respect you. I think you put too much in a organization without checking.
My opinion and I am comfortable with it.
I do not have any RMEF contacts!
Last edited:
I have checked and I have asked. Before you are nominated to the Board, you must serve at least one year on a Board Committee, with my year being on the Finance Committee in 2012. I asked the specific questions about the Double HH, as I had went to the Double HH in 2011 to look around and talk to some people. I had also heard some of these same rumors and wanted to know more before joining the Board and so I asked those questions and many other questions. The answer is; every person who hunted bulls was required to pay full price. The ranch was required to recover every possible dime, as it was operating in the red, something a non-profit cannot do for sustained periods. RMEF did not have the luxury of letting any potential revenue go uncollected.
Nobody gets banned for stating opinions on this site. If you want to hold the opinion that I put too much in without checking, while having no information about what checking I do/did, you're right, that is your opinion.
bobbydean
Well-known member
Thank you for your reply.
I too had been under the wrong impression of how things worked with RMEF & no where near as well informed as BF.
I met with the head of grants & land use projects(?) & NM RMEF head @ the HH, in 10' when I had applied for a solar pump system. I asked as many ?'s as they did in my interview. Was a great evening at the old ranch house.I got straight answers and know more how this and other "deals" RMEF has been involved with.
I asked BF in person as a mater of fact, on our first meeting.
Getting info from reliable sources pays for all the unreliable ones. LEO sayin',just sayin'.
The end game was worth it on the HH,so far.
That's another area just outside of a RMEF Cons.Easement to hunt public lands if I draw,and I can stay at a HH ranch neighbor. A 4th generation local rancher who knows the place like the back of her horse.
kmf
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2010
- Messages
- 206
Thanks for sharing and thanks for your work, Big Fin.
Similar threads
