MDF, FNAWS, RMEF ect....

S

sheepeater

Guest
So I need this answered, when did these organizations such as the MDF and FNAWS ect.... become or should I say designed to become beneficial to the hunter. I personally thought that they were formed to benefit the animals and not hunters inherited rights or the hunting tradition and legacy. By the way let me reiterate that hunting is damn sure not a right it is 100% privledge. So all this flame throwing at the heads of these organizations saying they dont do enough for the common man is bunk, however they go about it these organzitions should be solely focusing on the animal and not the hunters, hunting is a by product of the work that these organizations due to better the habitat, better the knowledge, and better the future of the animals that we all have the PRIVLEDGE to hunt. It is not about Joe blue collar worker getting his fair share of the pie or that some rich guy gets a better shot at a trophy than said blue collar guy, that sort of thing needs an organizion in itself. Heck personally I think these groups should be more brazen about cutting out certain hunting privledges, Montana is a prime example, we manage for hunter opportunity up here and not necassirly for biology or trophy opportunities and that gets these guys in trouble by overhunting herds ect... MDF should step in and say No-Way you are overhunting your populations and that is bad biology management who cares if the common man cant hunt anymore, do right by the animals and the rest will take care of itself. MDF,FNAWS ect.... should be focusing 100% of their efforts on the Animals they represent. Lets not forget that.
hunterrunningfrombearlgclr5ju.gif
 
Now that is one hell of a narrow view. I agree with it, but come one 75% of the people who buy hunting tags do not. Sure if you have a lot of money this works great. If you are the blue collar guy then you are just out of luck. It is a lot more complicated than what you have just stated and I'll be honest, it's unfortunately not about the animals its about the hunter. Without the hunter and the monetary support of the hunter most of these animals would have been killed off long ago. So yes we do have to cater to the hunter. 75% of the hunters just want to hunt they don't care if they see a 200 bc buck in every unit. So in reality management should be for hunt opportunity in 75% of the units and 25% should be trophy units for the minority who cares only about the horns.

T
 
Sheepeater, I think youre from montana, correct? Do you vote? In 2004, Montanans went to polls and protected their hunting heritage by approving a constitutional amendment protecting their right to hunt, fish and trap, and did so by an overwhelming margin, 81% to 19%!

There are about 20 other states that have also made similar amendements.
 
WOW, another deep subject from you Sheepeater. You love to get the wheels turning and mix it up, don't you?

I would like to see money come from other places than just hunters whether they are R or NR. Any outdoors person should kick in more. We are learning that Public land has value and AWOL is trying to sell bits and pieces of it whether there are big game on them or not. If it's public land then everyone should help pay their way. Big and small game should be managed for health and not for wealth. The problem is, money talks and that is all that matters anymore unfortunately. If it doesn't have a price tag on it today, it will tomorrow. These groups do a lot of good but they don't seem to account for every cent they take in it seems.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-06 AT 02:38PM (MST)[p]This is all supposedly stemmed from the privileged (Joe $) getting more then the average Joe, right ? isn't that's what really on some poeples minds?

Answer this for me, Do you think these gov, tags ect; would be as appealing to Joe $, if he had to conduct his hunting along the same guidelines as the general population, with such restriction as season dates, unit area, I mean, no more August to January seasons, no more any weapon and any unit, I'm thinking that would be a big NO!

Just like being the big shot in an organization, you get perks no doubt, but is it ethical ?

Time?s must change, and we, Joe hunters need to be parting with more of our money for the powers that be to take us seriously, when we say no more discrimination but equal opportunity for all, if we're not willing to let the state's in which we apply keep at least half our tag fees when we're not successful, then things will never change but get worse.


Money talks and $ullshit walks right? I think there is enough guys here to make those change?s happen, but not with out sacrificing some dowe $.$$ ??

And to the guy who said hunting is a privilege not a right, it wasn?t a 100 years ago. And it still shouldn't give Joe $ more freedoms or rights then I, money is needed to help secure the mule deer?s future, but it shouldn't be up to Joe $ to fund it, as we see clearly the system becomes corrupted very easily.

For this to be put back into a level playing field, every one has to contribute $'s plain and simple.

let me predict what the future may hold, the feds are going to get involved & take away the athority from the state to regulate what's, what in the hunting industry.

Donedeal?
 
Same post on cancel mdf thread...

Why don't these orgs lobby for legislation or pay for the initiative drive to pass legislation?

For instance to increase fees for licenses and tag apps by $10 per. With the caveat being that ALL that money is to be held in trust for the sole purpose of purchasing and improving large game habitat?

Why? Because then they would have no cause to ask the state to GIVE them X tags to auction via their sole access channel. They'd lose control of the money, they'd lose the support and lobbying bucks they achieve with the high rollers they sell the tags to. They'd become a for the people venture soley and that just isn't as sexy as having a Basketball star pimp tags with you in a Salt Lake City Bonanza.

They could even set up a trust board of X state biologists and X members of conservation groups to vote on the best places to spend the money so that the orgs would have ongoing input on how and where the money was spent. They could make those positions elected ones so that the public could hold them accountable for their actions. There'd be all the money that's derived now from auctioning off what belongs to everyone and access would be back to a 100% equal opportunity regardless of whether a unit were managed for quality or quantity. They could even still offer a couple tags by raffle to raise extra dough.

The point is that everything they claim to achieve via large numbers of wealth tags can be achieved by another means with equal oportunity, if that's what they chose to do. They don't because this is as much about power and wealth as it is hunting and heritage. The game belongs to the state. The state is the people. The oportunity and access should always be equitably and equally afforded everyone who is a citizen. These orgs can chose any damn time to approach the funding in a way that doesn't favor wealth, it's a choice.

It's s circular agument, "We raise huge money to buy land so we deserve the tags to auction", but it's the auctioning of the tags that gets you the damn money! The state could have done that without the orgs! I appreciate that in particular groups like FNAWS are responsible for much of the restoration of sheep numbers, but they achieved much of that raising money the old fashioned way. So, either get into a partnership with ALL hunters and the state or raise all of the money without selling public property.
 
Zigga-Another good point.
TFfinalshot-Came straight out of Leopold. As far as I can remember in my fledging days as a wildlife biology undergrad. We as hunters are nothing more than a tool in the eyes of those who truly control things or a menace depending on who you talk to.
Nvrenuff-Thanks, you know it is hard to wade through all the greed that seems to be going on around here, but you know once in awhile a light bulb goes off, and then we realize what is truly important.
hunterrunningfrombearlgclr5ju.gif
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-06 AT 01:06PM (MST)[p]Oh, well then, if it came straight out of Leopold (I think you mean Aldo Leopold) it must be right. However, you are wrong to publish his idea as your own. He deserves credit for his ideas and therefore you should have acknowledged him in your post, if for no other reason then to put to context, your use of the word, "right."

While Aldo Leopold was, with little doubt, a sage, I believe if he were alive, he would object to how these so-called, "conservation" organizations are doing business.

Moreover, and the more important of the message from Leopold, is that our resources should be managed as a system, and not as independent parts.
 
Good points, all.

In today's world, money is power, if you don't have the $ backing, how can you lobby your interest?

Sad fact, that the 'will of the people' isn't enough anymore.

Righto, these orgs must focus their mission statement and stick to it. That's a member's responsibility to police.

But who do you think will lobby out on top, when it comes to going toe-to-toe with the likes of big energy on wide scale habitat disturbance, or worse yet, big public land sales?

While some orgs are focusing on the small habitat enhancement projects for the quick local PR payoff, no one has taken a stand on energy/real estate development impacts on mule deer prime range. If they are, it's way too quiet.

Where are the MDF, RMEF, FNAWS reps at resource advisory councils?

I hope I'm wrong on this...square me away.
 
"Where are the MDF, RMEF, FNAWS reps at resource advisory councils"

GREAT POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am a RAC member. I attend all the meetings and help the BLM with their public hearings, meetings, and I'm a member of their IDT team (all volunter for those that want bash me some more for sittin on my but and griping), and not once I have heard from any of them, not in writting, not in person not ever, period. On the otherhand, I hear from a lot of other people and organization. I am a RAC member in an area that holds some of the worlds best wild elk and sheep hunting, and FNAWS and RMEF have thus far been silent.

In fairness to them, they do buy land to remove it from develpment, that's a good program, at least it has helped the elk populations.

Take care,
 
TF---

Thanks for being on the RAC.

We need more folks like you who show up and put their actions where their interests are. The BLM needs volunteers to take hold of issues and move on them.

Maybe your RAC could 'educate' these orgs as to what the stakes are, so they'll encourage representation.

Has your field office been pegged to ID land for sale, like the USFS?
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom