wtf rmef

[Nameless Range]

So you are butt hurt over the RMEF saying other groups are "pseudo-sportsmen groups". Of all the vile names you guys use to on here to call other hunters who you disagree with and that is the term bothers you guys?

That is some interesting stuff. Are there any pseudo-sportsmen groups claiming they speak for all Montana hunters? I suspect there are some.

When ever anyone gets that offended by a fairly mild term, it usually means there is a nugget of truth in the use of the term.

Nemont

That's garbage Nemont.

People on here will attack certain groups all the time , call them all sorts of names, and provide reasoning as to why those names apply.

No reasonable person would expect an org they support to agree with them on every issue. It is not unreasonable though, to expect that when an organization you support quotes Toby Bridges and Will Coogin in an attack on other organizations , furthering the agendas of both of those contingents, to provide reasoning as to why that attack is justifiable.

So David Allen and his defenders need to put up or shut up.

Whether or not "pseudosportsman" organizations exist is irrelevant. What organizations are "pseudosportsman" and why? Arguments and reasoning matter.

 

[BuzzH]

Not to mention, there's this contraption called a telephone that people can pick up and call each other rather than sending an emotion fueled mass email.

 

[tjones]

Or Mr. Allen stated exactly what his belief is having had worked with other groups.

Are there "pseudo-sportsmen groups" out there?

Nemont

Maybe a better question Nemont is are there any "pseudo-sportsmen" out there?

 

[wdkrings]

I was explained by a RMEF board member, that the reason for the support of SB 245 was for added opportunity... (Extending the season I guess?)

On another note: I completely agree with Rob G. I consider myself an advocate for equality in wildlife management, and SB 245 is a bad deal for your average joe sportsmen. I also am very upset with David Allen calling my work, and my colleagues work that of 'pseudo sportsmen.'

I think some apologies are in order.

FWP already holds these options in their tool box, but SB 245 really just makes it easier for the 'peasants' to clean up the mess when the king is done for the year.

RMEF should have asked true MT sportsmen what they thought before they dove into this black hole.

 

[----]

Hopefully next time RMEF is looking to hire a new director, they look elsewhere than the treasure trove of conservation minds that is NASCAR Marketing and Sponsorship.

 

[Nemont]

Maybe a better question Nemont is are there any "pseudo-sportsmen" out there?

Without a doubt there are.

 

[TheTone]

Hopefully next time RMEF is looking to hire a new director, they look elsewhere than the treasure trove of conservation minds that is NASCAR Marketing and Sponsorship.

Agreed, also love seeing my dollars go to bull riding events. Heck just once I'd like to see something in the magazine about a project in Idaho that is recent.

 

[Nemont]

That's garbage Nemont.

People on here will attack certain groups all the time , call them all sorts of names, and provide reasoning as to why those names apply.

No reasonable person would expect an org they support to agree with them on every issue. It is not unreasonable though, to expect that when an organization you support quotes Toby Bridges and Will Coogin in an attack on other organizations , furthering the agendas of both of those contingents, to provide reasoning as to why that attack is justifiable.

So David Allen and his defenders need to put up or shut up.

Whether or not "pseudosportsman" organizations exist is irrelevant. What organizations are "pseudosportsman" and why? Arguments and reasoning matter.

I am not a member of the RMEF after the last time they spent membership money on what turned out to be basically a private hunting club for the big wigs.

If whether there are or are not pseduosportsmen groups that exist or not is "irrelevant" then why do you want them named? That is some circular reasoning.

I could care less Allen made $0 or $1 million, that is irrelevant to me, I don't send my hard earned money to RMEF.

Personally I don't see the need for this bill but I also find it funny how tied in knots some of you guys are getting over this email. Nobody on here ever sent a poorly worded email and wished they hadn't?

Again when ever somebody gets that butt hurt over something almost always is because what was said hits close to the truth and truth usually infuriates people when it comes to politics.

Nemont

 

[ingomar]

Just to bring some clarity on SB 245, here is what it actually says "The department MAY conduct a postseason population management hunting season for anterless elk etc." and "the department shall implement, through existing wildlife programs, necessary actions with the objective that the population of elk, deer and antelope remains at or below the sustainable population. The programs may include but are not limited to a) liberalized harvests; b) game damage hunts; c) landowner permits; d) animal relocation; e) postseason anterless elk hunts". The last one is added by this bill.

Director Jeff Hagener testified that he had spent 4 hours working with the sponsor to come up with wording that was acceptable to the dept. The rumor is that there was a deal made between the Director and the Sponsor wherein the Sponsor would drop SB 120, which would have removed "Public hunting" from the requirement to qualify for a game damage hunt, in exchange for working together to develop SB 245. At both the Senate & House FWP hearings, Director Hagener was a strong supporter of this bill (you can watch his testimony on the legislative website). The bill leaves all decision making authority with the dept and it is their choice whether they use this tool or not. Do I trust the dept to use this tool properly?????? So is the problem with the bill or the Dept.?

Through a series of events, SB 245 has led to 2 major blowups between RMEF and sportsmen groups. The real problem with the bill lies in the fact it has caused a war, with sportsmen fighting sportsmen. Both sides have now become firmly entrenched in defending their positions creating a lose-lose scenario for all. Both RMEF and the sportsmen groups involved have done good things for hunters and our wildlife resources.

We need to find ways to have intelligent, civil dialogue on these issues that respects differing opinions while working towards collaborative win-win solutions to the many challenges facing us. Right now in Montana we are producing a lot of elk, yet access remains a serious challenge. We need to find new ways to work together, while at the same time protecting against any attempt to institute a Ranching for Wildlife program wherein landowners are allocated tags and special season structures that can be sold to the highest bidder. Name calling, inaccurate information, refusal to listen to other opinions and dividing sportsmen is completely counter productive.

 

[RobG]

Again when ever somebody gets that butt hurt over something almost always is because what was said hits close to the truth and truth usually infuriates people when it comes to politics.

I will just say that you are totally wrong on why I am upset about Mr. Allen's email. I don't even expect that kind of garbage from volunteer leaders, much less from ones paid more than $200k.

 

[Nemont]

I will just say that you are totally wrong on why I am upset about Mr. Allen's email. I don't even expect that kind of garbage from volunteer leaders, much less from ones paid more than $200k.

I have been wrong before. Odd things happen in legislative years and me being wrong could be one of them, doubt it though.


Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

The bill leaves all decision making authority with the dept and it is their choice whether they use this tool or not. Do I trust the dept to use this tool properly?????? So is the problem with the bill or the Dept?.

How can you trust the Department to do the right thing when they're being controlled and manipulated by the Legislature? Don't think they are? Why then is the MTFWP director an appointed position? Why are there mountains of wildlife related legislation introduced each session?

I do trust, that the Department has the potential to do the right thing, as long as politics stay out of game management.

Trouble is, that hasn't happened for a long, long time. There is precisely ZERO FWP directors that are not going to be influenced by politics and make decisions based on pressure from their Governor (boss), via the legislature and/or dumb legislation.

Its pretty obvious the legislature doesn't trust the FWP or they wouldn't be pulling this chit every session.

 

[Ben Lamb]

How can you trust the Department to do the right thing when they're being controlled and manipulated by the Legislature? Don't think they are? Why then is the MTFWP director an appointed position? Why are there mountains of wildlife related legislation introduced each session?

I do trust, that the Department has the potential to do the right thing, as long as politics stay out of game management.

Trouble is, that hasn't happened for a long, long time. There is precisely ZERO FWP directors that are not going to be influenced by politics and make decisions based on pressure from their Governor (boss), via the legislature and/or dumb legislation.

Its pretty obvious the legislature doesn't trust the FWP or they wouldn't be pulling this chit every session.

By that logic, we should never trust any agency ever, right?

As for FWP & 245, i trust the agency to do this the right way and as Vito said, it doesn't force FWP to have the late season hunts. It only codifies current regulatory mechanisms and puts a drop dead date of Feb. 15th.

Was the bill necessary from a strictly mechanical point of view? No. Is there room for legitimate differences of opinion on the merits of late season hunts and legislative meddling in setting seasons, you bet, and I've personally spent a lot of time fighting against the legislature setting seasons instead of our commission. But SB 245 doesn't set seasons, nor does it erode commission authority.

I think that if you look at what these groups accomplished together, you see a hugely successful session for sportsmen and women. 4.7 million dollars in new funding for FWP, restoration of the spending authority for 12.5 million in habitat projects and the tanking of the transfer of public lands movement in the state.

I really wish we could celebrate that than fight over a relatively small bill like SB 245.

 

[Nameless Range]

If whether there are or are not pseduosportsmen groups that exist or not is "irrelevant" then why do you want them named? That is some circular reasoning

No, it's not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with, which has not occurred here.

For example:

Bill accuses someone of being a killer. Nemont says that killers exist. Nameless says that whether or not killers exist is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not the accused is actually a killer.

Sorry, but that's not circular.


The issue is not whether or not pseudosportsmans groups exist, the issue is that specific groups in opposition to SB 245 were accused of being such groups. That requires justification.

You yourself keep implying that because people are pissed about this, there is likely a validity to such claims. For one, I don't think that is necessarily true. People get pissed at false accusations all the time. For two, such claims are damaging when coming from those in power(David Allen), whether they are true or not.

I am saying such claims should be backed up and justified. Especially when they are parroted from the likes of Bridges and Coggin, furthering their causes. I don't see what is unreasonable about that.

 

[Nameless Range]

I think that if you look at what these groups accomplished together, you see a hugely successful session for sportsmen and women. 4.7 million dollars in new funding for FWP, restoration of the spending authority for 12.5 million in habitat projects and the tanking of the transfer of public lands movement in the state.

I really wish we could celebrate that than fight over a relatively small bill like SB 245.

You are absolutely right that sportsmen should celebrate all that was defended an accomplished this session. Good job and thanks to all those who put effort forth.

In this particular thread, the issue isn't really SB 245 though, it's David Allen's accusations and the manner in which they were made. What do you think of calling those who opposed SB 245 "pseudosportsman" groups?

 

[BuzzH]

By that logic, we should never trust any agency ever, right?

As for FWP & 245, i trust the agency to do this the right way and as Vito said, it doesn't force FWP to have the late season hunts. It only codifies current regulatory mechanisms and puts a drop dead date of Feb. 15th.

Was the bill necessary from a strictly mechanical point of view? No. Is there room for legitimate differences of opinion on the merits of late season hunts and legislative meddling in setting seasons, you bet, and I've personally spent a lot of time fighting against the legislature setting seasons instead of our commission. But SB 245 doesn't set seasons, nor does it erode commission authority.

I think that if you look at what these groups accomplished together, you see a hugely successful session for sportsmen and women. 4.7 million dollars in new funding for FWP, restoration of the spending authority for 12.5 million in habitat projects and the tanking of the transfer of public lands movement in the state.

I really wish we could celebrate that than fight over a relatively small bill like SB 245.

Ben I do trust the Agencies, just not those that think they know better than the agencies via their "over-sight". Not to mention that the Agencies take a public opinion ass-handling for decisions that they are essentially forced to make.

I wont be supporting redundant legislation that gives the Legislature another "tool" to handle the FWP. I can hear it now, the first landowner that is denied a late season, is going to call his legislative rep and quote this bill. Question is, will the FWP Director have the stones to tell them to pound sand...or is he going to fold and offer up more MT elk? Don't answer that...I already know as past practices matter.

There is a commission in place for a reason, politics has, and is, eroding their ability to function and ability to manage wildlife in Montana...and Wyoming...and Colorado...and....you get the point.

 

[Sytes]

I suppose I am not putting the weight of the world on the few choice words.

Anyone seen an NRA rant to it's members? Talk about ridiculous! This is baby cakes in comparison. I believe it amplifies a point... sometimes it exceeds the level of amplification most times it is not enough. Sure, it may peeve a few people, and it may encourage a few.
Nature of the organizations out there...

One here commented on the use of funds to assist a Rodeo event... No problem in my book if it advertises to a crowd other than the PETA loving wolf puppy love groups.
MTA - heck, they have some very good looking ladies they support with their;
http://www.montanatrappers.org/mrmi.htm#.VUEpg03Qe70

The MTA has been a partner with Miss Rodeo Montana, Inc since 1997 and is one of the first sponsors for Miss Teen Rodeo Montana which started in 2005.

The MTA has been a Big Sky Partner with Miss Rodeo Montana, Inc since 1997.

And? No prblemo from my perspective... Adverisement worth the money used.

I see a lot of nit picking and a lot less understanding for the intent of the message - not to the public though to our private members of the organization - I do not profess to be as well versed as many of you here and whether I agree or disagree, I always appreciate your perspective as often times upon research, I absorb thoughts shared here... as I do as a member of RMEF.

I am a life member of NRA as well though if you think for a second, their private member metters are a fair and reasonable assessment of our 2nd amendment rights, well, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona... From my front porch you can see the Sea and if you'll buy that I'll throw the Golden Gate in free.... As George Straight sings.

Those who continue to play the self-driven, finger-pointing game continue to drive serious and long-lasting wedges between sportsmen and landowners. It is time for this behavior to stop.

Good statement!

 

[JohnCushman]

Bugle magazine has good recipes

 

[double_a85]

Bugle magazine has good recipes

And purty pictures

 

[RobG]

I suppose I am not putting the weight of the world on the few choice words.

Anyone seen an NRA rant to it's members? Talk about ridiculous! This is baby cakes in comparison.

Well, as they say, just because a tyrannical nutjob does it doesn't make it right. However, in this case it is especially wrong because it furthers the agenda of the people trying to divide the hunters. I saw nothing from any of the opposing groups smearing RMEF. Joe Perry had that email, but that wasn't an official statement for an organization, and he later apologized.

Given all that, Allen's closing statement is unbelievably hypocritical.