Straight arrow. U seem like u really cared. I apologize for offending u. Obviously our experience and expectations were different. That's why I say. They did some good to great things but in my experience and opinion, we the public should have better. No doubt u did what was right in your time. Maybe u should get more involved. Iam telling u are experience was very different.
UPOM suing FWP over elk regulations
- Thread starter mtnkid85
- Start date
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
'Don't even know what that means. How about applying some metrics and criteria to that so that your expectations are more clear.
Specificity is the cure for the vague.
seeth07
Well-known member
Historically it may have been different but a simple way to determine the effectiveness of a charity is by their "program percentage". The program percentage is the raw % of the money raised that goes directly to the cause. The higher the percentage, the more of your dollar donated goes to what you actually want it to go to. Anything above 85% is usually considered pretty good and the best are in the 90%-95% range. RMEF was under 85%. This is due to their high cost to raise money and because they tend to pay their paid position members quite well . The high cost to raise money is because they need to do banquets and raffles to get people to donate. Think about an organization like PETA - people just donate out of passion whereas hunters are typically NOT donating to RMEF out of pure passion - they want to win something in return.
Just like Shed God, I'm not saying that RMEF is bad - they do some great things. I get an annual membership myself still. I just wish the dollar that got donated was able to be used better.
Last edited:
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,006
How far under 85%??
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
What was it President T. Roosevelt said about the "man who was actually in the arena"?
seeth07
Well-known member
I think what you’re seeing is some chapters are very active and some, like my two closest chapters are basically just useless drinking clubs that hold a banquet every year to give money back to HQ. I’m never seen a single habitat project done by them, never see them show up to meetings, never see them provide comments on elk seasons, don’t see them show up for state volunteer projects, etc. They could do a ton of work in my area on trail projects, habitat work, etc but they dont
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
When valuing the effectiveness of a nonprofit, the numerical metric such as the 85 vs 79 comparison is an indicator, but it is much more complex than that. In the case of RMEF over the decades it has been noted that highly professional and productive employees have moved on due to the austere nature of the nonprofit's budget, which faces the dilemma of employee retention versus escalation of compensation. To their credit, RMEF has been able to recruit and motivate replacement professionals continuously to keep producing great results on behalf of elk and other wildlife ... as well as hunting.
Certainly my bias is obvious, but when the successful projects through the decades are recounted and shown to still be of increasing value, RMEF stands tall as an organization worth support of wildlife advocates, hunters, and those who value public lands.
Certainly my bias is obvious, but when the successful projects through the decades are recounted and shown to still be of increasing value, RMEF stands tall as an organization worth support of wildlife advocates, hunters, and those who value public lands.
Hmm. What years were you analyzing?
When I was on the Board and chaired the Finance Committee, Charity Navigator, the service that ranks large non-profits, came up with 88-90% every year for the percentage of funds that went to program expenses.
I just went to their financial statements and it seems they are staying very close to that 90% number.
I just went to Charity Navigator and looked up their Accounting and Transparency score. It is 96 out of 100 for the last year on file.
seeth07
Well-known member
I used Charity Watch, I did just go to Charity Navigator and the 96% you mention is what their "score is" for that metric. It is the "program percentage" of dollars spent for the cause.
Mind sharing those financial statements?
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,817
Analyze with whatever metrics you want but RMEF has had a hand with most of the recent land acquisitions in Montana. I think @Straight Arrow statement stands if we are talking about access via the land acquisition route which is my preferred route. For me, they do enough to get my money. If not the best for that than who else?
seeth07
Well-known member
Going to open up a can of worms but as far as habitat and preserving land for wildlife, look at APR. Your donated dollar goes a long ways there. There are also A LOT of small local organizations with almost ALL volunteers that do great work - i.e. no to little overhead.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Yes, Sir! We support American Prairie as well!
It's appropriate to tout American Prairie on a thread about the failed litigation of their archenemy.
Last edited:
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,817
Apr doesn’t work to get the land under fed management. Nor do the lands provide the same level of accessibility. They will never get a dollar from me for their preserve. The Apr rug pull is going to be pretty epic.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
RMEF will continue to get my money. If there’s a better organization out there, let me know. I’d like to support them too. 
Not sure how a thread abut UPOM suing Montana and getting their asses kicked in court ended up being a bitch session about conservation groups.
If folks want to start a thread on conservation groups and their accomplishments, start one. Happy to jump in and advocate for all the groups who do good, and there are many.
Let's get this thread back to the original topic, that being an anti-conservation group suing a wildlife agency and getting their ass handed to them.
If folks want to start a thread on conservation groups and their accomplishments, start one. Happy to jump in and advocate for all the groups who do good, and there are many.
Let's get this thread back to the original topic, that being an anti-conservation group suing a wildlife agency and getting their ass handed to them.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,221
Any time UPOM gets what's coming to them, I'm a happy camper.
They are a half a friend to the outfitting lobby, but they couldn't care less about the run of the mill resident deer and elk hunter. Oh wait, to be fair, they do at times want help culling does or cow elk from their lands
Just speaking for myself, I could in the right circumstance shoot a cow elk, if the hunt was a hunt, not a take you out to where they are, and just shoot one. That is pretty hypothetical, I've never done it, and spend no effort trying to make it happen.
I will never shoot a doe, where I am not welcome to hunt bucks, as well.
They are a half a friend to the outfitting lobby, but they couldn't care less about the run of the mill resident deer and elk hunter. Oh wait, to be fair, they do at times want help culling does or cow elk from their lands
Just speaking for myself, I could in the right circumstance shoot a cow elk, if the hunt was a hunt, not a take you out to where they are, and just shoot one. That is pretty hypothetical, I've never done it, and spend no effort trying to make it happen.
I will never shoot a doe, where I am not welcome to hunt bucks, as well.
MThuntr
Well-known member
Judge: Where’s the damage?
The dispute relates to a 2003 law directing Fish, Wildlife and Parks to manage elk “at or below” sustainable populations.
montanafreepress.org
Elk damage hunts begin as judge shoots more holes in property owners' lawsuit
Judge Gregory Todd issued an order granting partial summary judgment on two counts of the UPOM case in favor of FWP, the Fish and Wildlife Commission and wildlife advocacy groups.
