I am a member of a few of the pro hunting "conservation" groups in the world.

Namely Boone and Crockett Club (life member), Texas Trophy Hunters, Wild Sheep Foundation, Exotic Wildlife Foundation, NRA, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, OVIS, and NRA-ILA.

I think we have some huge problems in the hunting world when we can't agree what our party line is. We all know that while the anti-hunting community has tons and tons of money, they are fairly dissorganized.

We also have what I call anti-organizations in hiding, like the National Geographic Foundation, Sierra Club and Audobon Society.

My problem with the Boone and Crockett club and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is that they are anti-high fence. I have taken 1 animal in my life on a high fence hunt, it wasn't for me, and unless it was someplace like the Indian Head Ranch in Texas (10,0000 acres no cross fence) I probaly wouldn't do it again. I think their view is to the detriment of hunting, that leaves the entire world of hunting in Texas and a lot of the mid-west to be fed on by the wolves of the anti groups.

Then in another mortal blow RMEF failed to support Elk Ranchers in much of the west when the Game Deptartments shut them down. Not only did they not support them, the RMEF themselves pushed hard against the private ownership of elk on private lands. Alienating prive land owners and the livestock industry.

When I thought RMEF couldn't be stupider they are on a world wide (Ok, so it's only in the US and Canada)strike to put unfenced wild elk in every suitable piece of pasture in the country. So they want elk everywhere, but as long as they are not owned by anyone?

My problem with the Wild Sheep Foundation is two fold. First off they sued the Grand Slam Club over the use of the words "Grand Slam" so the Grand Slam Club had to change their name to OVIS. This was one of the most arrogant and wasteful things I have seen a pro hunting organization do.

For Wild Sheep's 2nd strike, they are waging a war against land owning ranchers in sheep areas for the outlaw of domestic sheep production near wild sheep herds. Alienating the livestock industry is not a good idea for any hunting orgazniation, let alone one that advocates the reintroduction of wild sheep.

I joined the Boone and Crocket club about 10 years ago, I need to call and talk to the director and ask for my $1000 back or for a change in policy. I won't be renewing my RMEF or Wild Sheep Foundation, anyone got a pro hunting organization that they really like and think is doing the right thing 100% of the time.

The other thing I have seen thanks to Facebook is a wanton waste and abuse of my conservation dollars by the staff of the organizations. One of them even when on a whitewater rafting trip.

I think that Shane Mahoney posed the question rather well in "Conservation Corner" in Sports Afield this month.

The question you should be asking is "Are you really a conservationist?" or to paraphrase, "Is the conservation group in question really about CONSERVATION?".

If the answer to that question is "yes", then I'd say that group is worthy of support as a conservation group.

IMHO B&C is definitely about CONSERVATION

I would say that TTHA isn't particularly conservation-oriented, but that's just my opinion. I simply don't see how promoting high-fenced operations that only about producing giant-antlered deer is "conservation" . . . but that's my opinion (and why I never even pick up thier magazine, much less buy them).

I don't have personal experience with the others, but RMEF seems pretty conservation-oriented to me - as does DU.

NRA is a gun-rights advocacy group - not a conservation group or a hunter's rights group. They are what they are and to expect otherwise is pointless.

It seems to me from your post that you are less interested in these organizations being about CONSERVATION than you are about protecting hunting rights and opportunities. IF that's what you're interested in I say more power to you . . . and that you ought to join a "hunter's rights" organization like SCI . . . just don't expect CONSERVATION organizations like B&C, RMEF, or DU to be about hunter's first, the resource 2nd.

Troy Hibbitts

I joined the RMEF the second year of their existence. Attended banquets for years. Then they took the pro-wolf stance in the late 90's. I quit and refuse to look back or support. Yes conservation, similar to DU, but I still belong to DU and attend banquets yearly. NRA, you own a gun, you should belong.

quote:

My problem with the Wild Sheep Foundation is two fold. First off they sued the Grand Slam Club over the use of the words "Grand Slam" so the Grand Slam Club had to change their name to OVIS. This was one of the most arrogant and wasteful things I have seen a pro hunting organization do.

For Wild Sheep's 2nd strike, they are waging a war against land owning ranchers in sheep areas for the outlaw of domestic sheep production near wild sheep herds. Alienating the livestock industry is not a good idea for any hunting orgazniation, let alone one that advocates the reintroduction of wild sheep.

I believe you are confused. It was the Grand Slam Club/Orvis group that sued the Foundation of North American Wild Sheep, not the other way around. As for domestic sheep introduced to areas near wild sheep, it is well known that a disaster is certain to follow. Diseases and parasites carried by domestic sheep have wiped out entire local populations of wild sheep many times in the past, and will do so again.

Generally, the species-specific wildlife conservation groups such as RMEF, DU, etc., do not get involved officially in hunting issues (although their members do). Their mission is to restore and improve habitat and put more sheep, more ducks, more turkeys, more elk, more quail, etc., on our lands.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Then in another mortal blow RMEF failed to support Elk Ranchers in much of the west when the Game Deptartments shut them down. Not only did they not support them, the RMEF themselves pushed hard against the private ownership of elk on private lands. Alienating prive land owners and the livestock industry.

The mission of the RMEF is to "Ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat."

They are not the voice of someone's pet living behind a high fence at private shooting zoo.

Sorry you are not a member anymore Kudu...they are pro state management of wolves. Unlike many of the other self serving "conservation" groups, the RMEF actually puts their money where their mouth is.

Just to clarify...conservation is "wise use of natural resources". Many of the groups MOA just listed have no affiliation with that concept.

Thanks Bill! I had remembered it wrong. Nothing like an incorrect rant!

Troy, well yes protecting hunting is more important than conservation. Sierra Club is a conservation outfit.

Everyone should send whatever they can afford the NRA-ILA. The NRA will protect hunting.

quote:

Sorry you are not a member anymore Kudu...they are pro state management of wolves. Unlike many of the other self serving "conservation" groups, the RMEF actually puts their money where their mouth is.

They have changed direction and leadership. I need to forgive and forget!

At the end of the day the more research I do, I think my money is probably better spent at SCI and NRA.

+1

quote:

Everyone should send whatever they can afford the NRA-ILA. The NRA will protect hunting.

I repsectfully disagree. The NRA is a gun rights organization. Hunting is secondary, although they certainly understand the importance of hunters in their mission. They put the overwhelming majority of their resources into gun rights efforts--as they should.

The best org for hunter's rights is the United States Sportsmen's Alliance. Their only mission is to fight anti-hunting groups and defend our hunting and trapping heritage.

I wish Utah would have fought harder against the "domestic elk" issue. The disease problems are harmful to the wild population. It is tough to watch the State shoot "contaminated" wild stock while they let the "domestic livestock (elk)" live. As a ranch owner, I find it sickening to watch the neighbor load up a trailer with bulls, take them to the high-fence mountain property, turn them loose while the hunter is being hiked up a side canyon, and then shoot the bulls as they wander aimlessly in a meadow. I believe in the solidarity of the fight, but there are groups with which I will not join. I'd rather hang it up than throw in with some of the garbage.

Look at some of the groups out there and the motives behind them. Protecting their business interests.

quote:

Originally posted by MOA TACTICAL:

Troy, well yes protecting hunting is more important than conservation. Sierra Club is a conservation outfit.

And pardon me if I respectfully disagree. If hunters protect hunting to the point of no longer being conservationists, what will there be left to hunt? Stuff in pens?

IMHO - we should all strive to be "hunter-conservationists". I have no problem with folks being hunters first and conservationists second . . . but PLEASE don't forget the conserverationist side of the equation. Its our responsibity as hunters to ensure wise use of our resources if we want to ensure the future of hunting.

Troy Hibbitts

A lot of distortion and mis-information in the original post.

RMEF fought against privitization of wildlife for a variety of reason. Disease transmission is one huge factor, let alone privitization is the opposite of the North American Conservation model. This isn't anti- rancher or business, it is protecting the resource for the general public.
RMEf is now very much anti-wolf, although at a time they were neutral, but never pro-wolf.

B+C is anti high fence hunting at its core. Again, review the North American Conservation model in place for some 100 years.

Both of these groups deserve your support as they are defintely about conservation and supporting hunting.

I also support NRA, DSC and several local pro-hunting groups. SCI will never get my support, and there is plenty of information on this site about their shenanigans.
Bill

quote:

Originally posted by llamapacker:
A lot of distortion and mis-information in the original post.

RMEF fought against privitization of wildlife for a variety of reason. Disease transmission is one huge factor, let alone privitization is the opposite of the North American Conservation model. This isn't anti- rancher or business, it is protecting the resource for the general public.
RMEf is now very much anti-wolf, although at a time they were neutral, but never pro-wolf.

B+C is anti high fence hunting at its core. Again, review the North American Conservation model in place for some 100 years.

Both of these groups deserve your support as they are defintely about conservation and supporting hunting.

I also support NRA, DSC and several local pro-hunting groups. SCI will never get my support, and there is plenty of information on this site about their shenanigans.
Bill

Well said.

I used to belong to a lot of this organizations over the years and finally dropped all of them but for SCI and NRA. SCI fights for us hunters in court,no one else dose, they did a lot for us to get the wolf off the list and back to managing them,and also donates to area F&G for transplants,etc and the NRA fights for our gun rights and yes they all have their quirks but the other ones in my opinion are just nuts, for an example when you go to their banquets it all for the money and could careless about you. They do not stand up for anything except for their pocket books.There are other organizations that are good for other people but I like my two...