I have been a member of Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation off and on over the years. Question - are they legit? Do they do what they say they will do? Are their finances proper?

They were very active at one time, but seem to have fallen by the way side. We had a Canadian chapter at one time, but they left us in the lurch. They did publish a nice glossy magazine, but I think even that is gone. Used to be a member but decided it was a waste of money since the Canadian connection was dropped.

Grizz

You can't be serious...

Ever see one of the board members on an exclusive TV hunt? Not me. Ever see one of the board members selling tickets or working the door of the event? I have.

RMEF does more for American wildlife habitat than any organization I can name. Including DU.

Ski+3
Whitefish, MT

quote:

Originally posted by SkiBumplus3:
You can't be serious...

Ever see one of the board members on an exclusive TV hunt? Not me. Ever see one of the board members selling tickets or working the door of the event? I have.

RMEF does more for American wildlife habitat than any organization I can name. Including DU.

Ski+3
Whitefish, MT

Sorry, Not interested in spending Canadian money to help American wildlife.

Grizz

Something like 6 million acres of land conserved, many moved into the public domain for you and me and everyone else to enjoy. Millions of dollars spent enhancing other habitat for all wildlife, researching ways to enhance habitat, and supporting initiatives to bring in new hunters. I think they're legit and will remain a proud member after 23 years on the rolls.

It's true, you really do learn something everyday. Today I learned Canada isn't part of North America.

Great outfit, they do wonders with
what funds they can drum up from
members. buying land, or access to it.
Many other fine projects.
Fine magazine too.

I dropped out because of the almost
weekly dun's for donations, much like
the NRA did years ago til I told 'em
to stop it. RMEF didn't pay attention.
Seemed like it increased such mailings.

Get's damned tiring to me even though for
a great cause.

George

They are right here in Missoula, their headquarters
Great organization
All about elk and saving elk habitat
No trophy bullshit etc.
Simple grass roots outfit

quote:

You can't be serious...

No kidding!
They're alive and well and going full steam ahead. I just received their September/October 2020 Bugle Magazine today in the mail. I've been a Life Member since the late 80's, and I also attend their Hunter & Outdoor Christmas at the NFR Cowboy Christmas ever year here in Vegas, and it's scheduled for December 3-12, 2020 at the Las Vegas Convention Center. One of the best conservation and hunting organizations to belong to in my opinion. They have literally purchased and preserved over 7.9 MILLION acres in permanent hunting easements and properties, and restored elk herds across the U.S., and even in Ontario, Canada (1998). And they're not just about elk and preserving elk habit, but habit that will benefit many, many other species as well. By the way, the RMEF Hunter & Outdoor Christmas is FREE and open to the public. Try and beat that one.

Did RMEF support the reintroduction of wolves at one point?

Or is that rumor?

.

Here was the RMEF's statement on Wolves in 2014:

"'RMEF POSITION ON WOLF MANAGEMENT
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation maintains that science and biology are key facets in maintaining a sustainable population of wolves and a balanced landscape for elk and other wildlife. As spelled out in the original, federally-approved recovery plan, which was agreed upon by all parties involved, individual states should manage wolves as they do every other species—elk, deer, bears, antelope, lions, etc. State management would take effect as wolf numbers reached previously stated criteria allowing for a viable population. (In the Northern Rockies, for example, that meant a minimum of 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming respectively, which reached those levels in the early 2000s. Today, the wolf population exceeds the original minimum recovery goal by 400 to 500 percent.)

RMEF staunchly supports wolf management in the form of hunting and trapping, especially in undermanaged predator populations that have a more significant impact on elk and other wildlife. Biologists agree there is no science to refute the viability of managing wolves as with other species.

“There’s no biological reason against having a regulated hunting season,” said Dr. David Mech, senior research scientist for the U.S. Geological Survey, adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota and founder of the International Wolf Center. Mech, the preeminent wolf researcher of his generation, also warned of those who use the wolf for singular purposes of “saving the world.”

RMEF stands behind the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation , the most successful model in the world, and its two basic principles that our fish and wildlife belong to all Americans, and that they need to be managed in such a way that their populations will be sustained forever.

In an effort to increase the scientific understanding of wolves, wolf interactions with other species and wolf management, RMEF invested more than $925,000 in grants. The total equates to more than $260,000 in just the past five years, including $125,000 in 2013 alone. A majority of the contributions paid for independent research by leading universities, state and federal wildlife conservation agencies and tribal agencies."

However, since that time they have come out in a more direct opposition to the reintroduction of wolves, apparently as this wolf reintroduction/sustainability fiasco and ongoing litigation has gotten out of hand, as seen from the April 16, 2019 article from their web site:

April 16, 2019

"RMEF WARNS OF COLORADO WOLF REINTRODUCTION BALLOT INITIATIVE
MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is signaling a warning about an organized ballot initiative effort just underway in Colorado seeking to forcibly introduce gray wolves into the state.

“To be clear, RMEF strongly opposes the forced introduction of gray wolves to Colorado,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “We have witnessed 20 plus years of lies and litigation in the Northern Rockies concerning wolves. This Colorado effort is driven by the same groups using the same tactics to accomplish their agenda.”

In the Northern Rockies, initial recovery goals were established and agreed upon for the introduction of gray wolves that took place in 1995-96. Those goals were reached in 2002 but final delisting did not occur in Idaho and Montana until a congressional fix in 2011. Wyoming did not receive the ultimate ability to manage wolves until 2017. Animal rights and environment extremist groups used litigation and propaganda to delay the delisting time after time. (Go here to view a full listing of lawsuits and a timeline.)

Fortunately, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is already on record in opposition to a forced reintroduction. CPW has a wolf management plan in place and is prepared to effectively manage the already occurring natural colonization of wolves to Colorado. The ballot initiative is nothing more than a propaganda and fundraising-based effort by environmental extremists.

“A forced introduction of wolves to Colorado would cost untold amounts of taxpayer dollars, redirect already limited wildlife management resources and would have a significant negative economic impact to the state,” said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer. “In Colorado, you are dealing with about a third of the land mass of the Northern Rockies’ states but almost double the human population. A forced reintroduction would trigger the potential for real issues in the state.”

In addition, elk populations in southwest Colorado are already struggling. Researchers are working to find the cause of poor calf recruitment and low elk numbers. A forced reintroduction of wolves would be catastrophic to this work and the established elk and deer herds in the area.

Environmental groups continue to claim wolf reintroduction would “restore natural balance,” yet science shows that is anything but a given. Research also directly disputes the assumption that reintroducing wolves trigger what is termed trophic cascade or that the wolf’s presence automatically benefits biodiversity.

“It is one thing if wolves naturally return to Colorado, but it is something completely different if they are artificially placed on the landscape to complicate a system that is already complicated by human population and development,” added Weaver."

I have always maintained that wolves belong here in the West just like all the other predators including Griz
It takes couple of generation of prey to adjust to predators missing for 100 years but sky is not falling and that I will argue with anybody as I live in the middle of elk and wolf and life goes on..
I’m a hunter and also nature minded conservationist
I do not buy into this “ annihilation “ rhetoric

Thank you UEG.

Agreed Milan of course with the caveat of science backed management. I'm an admirer of Aldo Leopold.

Sorry Ross, didn't mean to derail the discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by SkiBumplus3:
You can't be serious...

Ever see one of the board members on an exclusive TV hunt? Not me. Ever see one of the board members selling tickets or working the door of the event? I have.

RMEF does more for American wildlife habitat than any organization I can name. Including DU.

Ski+3
Whitefish, MT

Echo on Ducks Unlimited. Not a fan!

Worst organization is Back Country Anglers and Hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Wonderful Wyoming:

quote:

Originally posted by SkiBumplus3:
You can't be serious...

Ever see one of the board members on an exclusive TV hunt? Not me. Ever see one of the board members selling tickets or working the door of the event? I have.

RMEF does more for American wildlife habitat than any organization I can name. Including DU.

Ski+3
Whitefish, MT

Echo on Ducks Unlimited. Not a fan!

Worst organization is Back Country Anglers and Hunters.

I might be in the minority here but I like the work BCHA does. Very happy with the recent action on William Perry Pendley and the Pebble mine. Habit matters as does Federal policy on public lands. I feel these guys do a great job on those issues. They also get out there and help with boots on the ground.

Opinions on the above named organizations depend on your experience with individual chapters.

Dave

I think that as sportsman we need to support the various organizations that help and promote hunting locally and around the world.

RMEF is one that I support. I have not went elk hunting in over 40+ years, however they do some great work and I help support that.

DU is another that I support. Again I have not been duck hunting in over 30+ years, and they also so some great work.

DSC is another one that I support. An organization that is doing conservation around the world.

SCI is another one that I support. An organization that is doing conservation around the world.

There are other organizations that I provide contributions, like the NRA, the anti poaching groups in Africa just to name a few.

And if a $20 to $100 a year donation is going to break you, you should not be hunting in the first place.

I have belonged to others groups over the years, now that I am retired I am now limiting my donations to the above groups.

Whether you believe RMEF, DU, DSC or SCI make a difference, take a look at past accomplishment and items that are currently being worked on. Donations do not need to benefit you as an individual, you need to look at what it will do for future generations.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by Big Wonderful Wyoming:

quote:

Originally posted by SkiBumplus3:
You can't be serious...

Ever see one of the board members on an exclusive TV hunt? Not me. Ever see one of the board members selling tickets or working the door of the event? I have.

RMEF does more for American wildlife habitat than any organization I can name. Including DU.

Ski+3
Whitefish, MT

Echo on Ducks Unlimited. Not a fan!

Worst organization is Back Country Anglers and Hunters.

I might be in the minority here but I like the work BCHA does. Very happy with the recent action on William Perry Pendley and the Pebble mine. Habit matters as does Federal policy on public lands. I feel these guys do a great job on those issues. They also get out there and help with boots on the ground.

The problem I have with them is they want all the ranches that have public lands blocked off opened up by vote, by force or by legal matters.

If you are a land owner of any kind it should scare the hell out of you.

It is kind of a socialist millenial bullshit propaganda system of doing things.

quote:

The problem I have with them is they want all the ranches that have public lands blocked off opened up by vote, by force or by legal matters.

They don't want the ranches opened up just access to the public lands

I believe public is public, but if you have to access another person's land, then it isn't public.

I wouldn't want half the west tresspassing my ranch to get to a land locked piece of public.

Access issues are complicated and many right of way and access agreements have a historical link. We all have our pet peeves, mine is people trying to prevent public access. BCHA and ONX freed up access to over 200K acres of Colorado State Trust lands. I fully support this type of work.

No comes one comes on my land without permission. Sorry.

If the State or someone organizing wants to come talk to me about that is fine. We will see if we can work something out. If the state puts a public road down the middle of it, so be it.

However, to simply decree anyone can cross my land. No, no, and hell no.

If only it were that simple, but then, what would lawyers do if it were?

As I stated above, access issues are complicated and often have a historical aspect in the West.

Take MT for example. Buy all the river front you want, but the public maintains access along up to the high water mark. You might not like it, but that is the law in MT, and one I fully support.

A public easement being in place by the legislature for upteen years is different that advocating policy that would erode property rights by ballot further.

The answer to public land blocked by private is to use eminent domain and simply build a public road across private to public.

The state road for my community splits my property in half.

Too wide of a brush. Much of these access issues involve small parcels of land that no public road will ever be be built upon.

The West is full of old mining roads, ranching roads, trails which have been in continuous use, private inholdings in public property, and public lands which are land locked by private ground.

There is no one simple solution, trust me on that one. I hunt nearly exclusively public land, other than my time spent on Indian Reservations where they have very similar problems.

These are case by case issues in the West with each State and many localities involved. It is a constant battle for both sides. I myself support as much access to public land as possible.

Again, and my last word on the subject as we are now repeating ourselves, Build a public road through eminent domain. I do not support this or any group bringing legislative pressure or process to abrogate personal property rights.

You do.

Build the road. But one of my jobs is to build highways.

Public land being land locked sucks forcing private owners to provide access sucks more. Compensate/incentive access. Force no, no, and hell no.


I do not hate them, want them to go Bankrupt, I simply oppose this specific policy.

You simply are failing to acknowledge the history of settlement in the West.

Building a road is rarely, if ever, the correct answer to these complex access issues. The population density out here does support that kind of infrastructure. If you build highways I would think you would understand that.

From your signature line it looks like you live well East of the Mississippi, I grew up in the North East, things are much simpler back there when it comes to land use.

Here we fight it out in court and I am on the side of the public land user.

Speaking of BCHA, big announcement this week about the pebble mine, should be interesting. I signed the petition opposing it.

quote:

Originally posted by SkiBumplus3:
You can't be serious...

Ever see one of the board members on an exclusive TV hunt? Not me. Ever see one of the board members selling tickets or working the door of the event? I have.

RMEF does more for American wildlife habitat than any organization I can name. Including DU.

Ski+3
Whitefish, MT

May want to check your numbers before you compare RMEF to DU.

We are one of the largest land conservation organizations in the World. Eighty seven percent of our money goes to purchase land for wildlife. Our CEO, who use to be a US Congressman, makes less than 380k per year. We have conserved almost 12 million acres. I have been a volunteer for years.

https://www.ducks.org/conserva...servation-score-card

Nothing is perfect, RMEF does more good than harm.
We no longer have BLM or NFS grazing premitts, but we do have private proptery with established easment to publicl lands. Yes we do get the occasional buck or coyote sniped out of alfalfa feilds. Mostly intitled locals. just the same, I greet those passing through with positive attitude because with out our public lands for hunting,hunting will become the "privilage" for only those that can afford to pay at the going rate in a capitolistic system. Not that capitolism is bad, but its good politics to keep the rif raf happy

I don’t think,public access To public lands in MT is done by Eminent domain
All done by negotiating and mainly using forgotten public access that had been closed by land owners in the past without permission ( read illegally )