RMEF appology for HR 1581 fiasco?

MAT

Member
Messages
92
I have been a HUGE supporter of the RMEF for more than 20 years. I was very upset to read about with their support of HR 1581 (the road less access bill) in another magazine. My membership is now up for renewal, and I want to base this on what they did to correct the situation. They wrote a letter to congress withdrawing support after some members complained, but there is not one mention of it on their website, or Bugle. It's as if it never happened. I want to see accountability for this completely unacceptable behavior, yet there does not appear to be any. Does anyone know if that's the case?

This feels to me like my best friend punched me in the gut, but if the RMEF sold out to political/special interests I have no option but to drop them. What's even more upsetting and perhaps the main reason why I'm thinking about dropping them is they have not even admitted this mistake to their members, as if they don't want us to know what was their biggest blunder ever. Why does every great hunting organization eventually fall prey to political influences? It's very sad as they have done some great things, but their leadership is completely out of touch.
 
I do not know the background (other than what you have explained), but I would reconsider dropping them. If we boycotted every org, or business that ever made a mistake, I am sure we would be left with nothing.

Now I agree, they should acknowlege the fault. Perhaps you as a member can persuade them to do.
 
Why did they do nothing to help prevent the "reintroduction" of canadian wolves into the lower 48?They are a complete waste of time/money.

My bone is no stranger to
great envy!
 
Mat,
I think there's a fine line between teaching some of these organizations a lesson by "falling on the sword" for one issue, as compared to looking at their overall track record of excellence for wildlife. We can't just keep dropping memberships to all these groups every time we have a disagreement with them or none of us would have a membership to any of them, and then no one would be out there fighting for us, or wildlife.
RMEF has probably done more for wildlife than any other group out there, period. And, in my opinion, under David Allen, they probably have the best, proactive leadership they maybe have ever had.
I don't agree with every single thing they have done, but I'm still a proud 20-year-plus member. If you don't like something they've done, send them an email and let them know! I'm sure they take every email and phone call to heart in their decision-making.
 
Please tell us the "rest of the story". What is/was this bill about and is it dead? To me it sounds like they were "listening" to the "wrong" members on this issue and then got massive feedback from the ranks that made them do an about face.

As already stated, I have had some disagreements about things they have done in the past, but name one other organization out there that does what they do: Put 90 cents of every buck we send them into projects for habitat.

I don't agree with all that the NRA does, but who else will fight that battle for us? Do you agree 100% with NRA and are you still a member?

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
I'm a life member of the RMEF and wonder if this thread is a making a mountain out of a mole hill. According to the most recent issue of Bugle, the RMEF now has over 184,000 members and in 2011 alone "helped fight the good fight by conserving more than 152,000 acres of prime elk country...including permanent protection of nearly 41,000 acres". Why would you resign your membership over an issue like this which it appears they have now decided to not support? This organization and others like them need more of our support, not less.
 
Would be nice if the OP had linked some info on this.

Could be he's a SFW fan bitter over RMEF's letter to AZ Governor Brewer opposing HB2072 and everything it stands for?

Either way, we're all entitled to our opinions.
 
This issue is over access and use. I like to have access to public lands. The Forrest Service and BLM have had most of these lands in a Study Area for almost 30 years. They did not meet the critera for wilderness then, and they still don't. I am as frustrated as most by having someone show up on a vehicle in an area that I spent a lot of time hiking in to. However, if they are not doing anything wrong, it is my fault for not looking at where they have a right to be. I am tired of the gov't restricting my ues of public lands. In a state like WY, if it becomes a wilderness area, NR will not be able to access it unless you pay for a guide. Is this right? There are a lot of uses which will not be allowed if these areas become a wilderness area. I know this issue is not cut and dried. I think a more restrictive policy on development and encroachment into habitat would be more useful. I have also observed, over the years, that there are a lot of cherry stem roads into wilderness areas which are only available for private landowners. I understand where you are comming from. I think we, as hunters must stick together whenever possible. If the folks from PETA or the Humane Society see a conflict, they will exploit it. If an area deserves to be a wilderness area, it should be so based on the criteria developed to create one. If not it should be realased for public use. I do not find fault with the RMEF on this issue.
 
"Released for public use" thats the kind of immature baby talk I get so sick of, Wilderness areas are for public use, get it? comprehend? This has nothing to do with PETA or the humane society, get it? Why dont you just be honest (hard I guess) why don't you just say , open it up for motorized use and possible development? because thats reality. Im so glad you think a more restrictive policy on development and encroachment would be useful? yea. get an education please.
 
Here is a good summary:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs...oundation-retracts-support-anti-roadless-bill

My take is this bill had nothing to do with hunting access and everything to do with oil, gas and mining interests. These would ruin hunting even more than truck and ATV access.

The RMEF has done great things, but it's the future I'm uncertain of. If the current leadership makes a huge mistake like this, what else are they capable of? To continue to send them money only reinforces their ability to destroy the RMEFs stellar reputation of protecting wildlife habitat, and staying out of politics. The fact they have not even informed their membership of this tells me they are keeping it quiet in hopes many don't find out and demand a change. It is that reason why I'm considering dropping them more than anything.
 
The RMEF did drop their support of the bill...they owned their initial mistake, changed position, and moved on. Maybe you should to.

I can tell you that they are once again on the right track as evidenced by their message regarding HB2072 in Arizona.
 
They dropped support for something they in no way should have ever supported in the first place, and only when someone found out and told some members, who then complained. There is no press release in support of the bill, which would a great of this was such as good idea, and no press release when they pulled support. They never owned up to anything, rather they swept it under rug hoping no one would notice.
 
RMEF has made a big mistake with David Allen and whoever decided to start having them stick their noses where they shouldn't.
The founders of RMEF must have lost control and their original mission statement is apparently gone, they are now polarizing like SWF and all the rest, therefore they will never get another penny from me, I will give elsewhere.
 
MAT,

No press release? Been playing Rip Van Winkle again?

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation today announced it has withdrawn its support for H.R. 1581.

RMEF President and CEO David Allen will respectfully inform the bill?s authors and supporters that RMEF cannot endorse the bill because of its potential negative impacts to roadless areas.

Allen said responses and feedback from RMEF members and a review of the scientific literature led to the withdrawal.

?We strongly believe in managing habitat to its best condition for elk. Along with controlling invasive weeds, managing forests, restoring grasslands and riparian zones, another element of habitat that's growing in importance is roads. The roadless-area impacts of H.R. 1581 include too many unknown risks for us to remain supportive,? said Allen.

The fundamental concern with H.R. 1581 is its attempt to deal with ?inventoried roadless areas? administered by the U.S. Forest Service alongside ?wilderness study areas? administered by BLM. The complexities of different land designations?by two different agencies with unique and historic policies on use?prevent a one-size-fits-all approach.

Allen said, ?We believe the proponents of H.R. 1581 are well intentioned and have restarted a necessary debate on best designations for public lands. If a parcel is suitable for wilderness, then it's imperative to designate it as such. If not, then the best science-based land and habitat management practices should be applied. Neither this bill nor the status quo are acceptable paths to resolving the problem. RMEF will revisit these issues with the BLM, Forest Service, Congress and sportsmen for a better solution.?

Federal and state agencies have been gridlocked too long in litigation and lawsuits from special interest groups and environmentalists, with land and habitat suffering the consequences. Allen called on all sportsmen to support a balanced, collaborative approach to management. He said RMEF watched the litigation and court maneuverings with the wolf debate for years, and now sees similar tactics being applied to public land management. RMEF will push for what is best for the land and the habitat.

He added, ?RMEF listens to its members and is guided by science. We reversed our original non-stance on wolves four years ago and we'll always be willing to revisit our positions and processes to do what's best for our mission. The debate over use of public lands is far from resolved and we will continue to engage the debate for the sake of the future of these lands.?

The mission of RMEF is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat.
 
Sounds to me like a well thought out response after more study was done by it's members on the subject. Mistakes are made all the time by everyone and if they are rectified in the proper way things should move on.
 
I am a proud supporter of RMEF and their mission. NOthing about this issue leads me to change that support. David Allen is the best thing to happen to RMEF in a decade. If you can't see the good they are doing, then don't support them. But you should be looking real hard at your own motives.
Bill
 
+1 to both topgun and llamapacker's responses. There is no one person or organization that will not error on occasion. Likewise, there is no one person or organization that I will agree with 100% of the time. Looks like RMEF realized what they saw as an error of their ways and admitted so. RMEF has consistently shown me they are more than worthy of my hard earned sportsman dollars.
 
My motives are not to support a group that supports a bill to create more development and roads on roadless public land, my motive is not to support a group that pushes to commercialize big game hunting in the west even more.
Like I said there are other way to support elk and help keep the hunting heritage we have enjoyed without supporting RMEF and those types of things. They once were a great organization, but now all I wonder is, what are they going to support next? the privatization of wildlife? The sell off of public land?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-12 AT 05:56PM (MST)[p]

>The RMEF did drop their support
>of the bill...they owned their
>initial mistake, changed position, and
>moved on. Maybe you should
>to.
>
>I can tell you that they
>are once again on the
>right track as evidenced by
>their message regarding HB2072 in
>Arizona.

They always change their position once the damage is done,if people didnt b!tch they wouldn't have changed anything.If they were in any way concerned about the future of the elk herds they missed the boat when they had a chance to do something abot the wolf proposals,by far the most important elk related issue in the last 100 years and they took a "non position",a cowards way of saying we are spineless and we Fd up.Worthless bunch of arrogant puppets.
My bone is no stranger to
great envy!
 
Please let us know another single organization out there that does 1/2 of what they do to preserve habitat and stop development? I doubt if all the other organizations out there combined do as much as they do. Prove me wrong and I will support those organizations too.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
txh58---I would make a guess that the only others might be DU and NWTF as far as on the ground work done year in and year out.
 
Around here GRVC does a lot with conservation easments, many times local conservation groups are much more effective at on the ground conservation, and they dont get involved polarizing political issues, nor do they have egotistical agenda driven leaders like David Allen or Don Peay.

Getting involved with the government agencys ( BLM, forest service, and the state game and fish depts.)is probably the most effective way to support conservation.
 
Just a guess, perhaps the bill looked different going into committee than it did coming out; how many times have we all seen that both at the Fed. and State level.

Either way, if you want answers you should write/call RMEF and get first-hand answers, holding people responsible, before severing ties.
 
If that is indeed a press release where is it posted? Not on their website with 100's of others. I also can't believe they would support something and then say "a review of the scientific literature led to the withdrawal." Shouldn't a scientific review have been done before they endorsed this bill? Is that not their mission?

So if this wasn't science based what was it? They never said why they supported it in the first place, where is that press release? Maybe we weren't supposed to ever find out.

The only way to fix something like this is the fess up, hold those responsible, and make amends. Since they have done nothing this leads me to believe they don't think they did anything wrong, other than get caught supporting a political agenda.
 
If that is indeed a press release where is it posted? Not on their website with 100's of others. I also can't believe they would support something and then say "a review of the scientific literature led to the withdrawal." Shouldn't a scientific review have been done before they endorsed this bill? Is that not their mission?

So if this wasn't science based what was it? They never said why they supported it in the first place, where is that press release? Maybe we weren't supposed to ever find out.

The only way to fix something like this is the fess up, hold those responsible, and make amends. Since they have done nothing this leads me to believe they don't think they did anything wrong, other than get caught supporting a political agenda.
 
Mat---If you had read the entire link that YOU posted earlier in this thread, you would see that it was an open letter written by CEO Allen and not a Press Release!!! I won't argue that it shold have been in the form of an actual press release because it does make it look like there was an attempted coverup. Howver, mistakes were made and rectified after further study and/or constituent comments were reviewed leading to the reversal. That's good enough for me and a lot of others, but maybe not enough for you. That is your right to disagree!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-08-12 AT 06:39PM (MST)[p]

I think the mistake RMEF is making is getting involved in politics AT ALL. They didn't and because of getting chewed up because of the wolf issue, they started doing political causes. Helps sometimes, backfires sometimes. If they stick to their stated purpose of habitat, they do great.

If you want a great political group to give to that fights for hunters rights, I have found none better than US sportsmans alliance

As for my part, we had our RMEF Texas Hill Country banquet last Saturday and are sending them a check for $40,000

Every hunting organization out there will most likely do things that we agree/disagree with. I kind of compare it to my church. Preachers and people come and go in the church. Some ideas I don't like get passed and promoted. But overall, we are moving in a positive direction. So when something I don't like happens, I work to get enough people involved to change it for the "better" Other people just get mad and leave the church.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
txhunter, I agree, they should stay out of polotics. But who else out there is purchasing winter range, floating loans to states to purchase migration routes and winter range?

IMO those of you that don't give to RMEF are endangering the future of elk hunting in North America.

Someone used the analogy with the NRA. I couldn't agree more. I disagree with the NRA o lots of issues. BUT who else is going to fight for our right to keep and bear arms????
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-07-12
>AT 05:56?PM (MST)

>
>
>
>>The RMEF did drop their support
>>of the bill...they owned their
>>initial mistake, changed position, and
>>moved on. Maybe you should
>>to.
>>
>>I can tell you that they
>>are once again on the
>>right track as evidenced by
>>their message regarding HB2072 in
>>Arizona.
>
>They always change their position once
>the damage is done,if people
>didnt b!tch they wouldn't have
>changed anything.If they were in
>any way concerned about the
>future of the elk herds
>they missed the boat when
>they had a chance to
>do something abot the wolf
>proposals,by far the most important
>elk related issue in the
>last 100 years and they
>took a "non position",a cowards
>way of saying we are
>spineless and we Fd up.Worthless
>bunch of arrogant puppets.
>My bone is no stranger to
>
>great envy!


This is the boiled down truth. You NAILED it!
I am not so sure that RMEF want to help elk as much as they want to preserve land from development and to hell with the elk.
They can preserve all the habitat they want but with no elk in it it is not "elk country".
The RMEF had the membership, the clout, and the ability to raise money to fight the wolf Nazi's. By doing nothing they sided with the wolf Nazi's I don't care much "good" they have done in the past. This one F up is the only one that means anything.
Now that other states are getting these worthless pieces of crap it will be interesting if the blind love fest for the RMEF
continues. My guess is when elk hunting tanks so will RMEF. Ron
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-08-12 AT 09:32PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-08-12 AT 07:41?PM (MST)

Ron - I am curious. What could RMEF have done to stop a reintroduction of wolves that was an agreement signed by the states of MT/ID/WY and the USFWS?

I hear critics moaning that RMEF could have stopped the reintroduction. So, lets hear the facts of how they could have stopped it.

None of the ag groups could stop it. None of the Federal politicians could stop it. Remember that the House of Reps in DC was controlled by Newt and Co. at the time, and they couldn't stop it. We had almost entire Republican delegations in MT/ID/WY at the time and they couldn't stop it. We had Republican governors in all three states, and they couldn't stop it.

So, just how was a non-profit elk habitat group based in Montana going to stop it?

Facts and details, please. We get enough fact-less hot air from the SFW folks.


As far as a press release on H.R. 1581, you will not find a press release that RMEF supported it and you won't find a press release where they decided to withdraw support.

They supported it by signing on to a letter crafted by SCI, no press release. They withdrew their support by writing a letter to the same Congressional committee members who received the initial letter they signed onto. They did not make a press release in either instance.

Good news is that they listened to their members and withdrew their support of the bill. Probably won't be the last mistake they ever make.

In the process of all the criticism listed above, they managed to conserve 6 million acres of elk habitat, bring 630,000 acres into public access, increase access to thousands more acres of previously inaccessible public land, and helped fund reintroduction of elk in many states.

We all can find things RMEF did that we disagree with. Good luck finding a group that has done as much for elk as they have.

I hope MAT donates his money to whatever cause he thinks is doing good for hunters, access, and habitat. Whatever group it is doesn't really matter, so long as it is a group he likes and can support for the betterment of hunting.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Litigation. it worked for the wolf Nazi's. If they would have jumped in it would have been more clout, more money, and more lawyers. RMEF could have added muscle. What did they do? As Buzz added this was the sound coming from RMEF's elk camp. Ron

 
RMEF shouldn't have gotten political period, Jack Ward Thomas advised them not to when they first started out, but they were pushed by thousands of hysterical not so bright hunters and here they are making more stupid mistakes, crawling in bed with Garth Carter and god knows who else. Im sure glad Im not a young outdoors person just beginning to get involved, its going to be a rough ride in the future
 
Idahorn---Just in case you aren't aware of it, WE, the Federal taxpayers, paid for all those wolf lovers to fight in Court because they can recoup the costs of litigation for those wildlife lawsuits. If RMEF had done as you suggested, they would have still been greatly outnumbered by the antis and would just have been out of all the money it would have cost for lawyers when they lost the cases.
 
I see it as the same as a guy breaking into your house. You don't fight back because he is a bad guy and armed. Your family all dies but you live because you hide in a corner and do nothing.
Not only did RMEF fail their members they failed the elk. Yes taxpayers were on the hook. So RMEF did right and saved money? Get a grip. Look at the social and economic Holocaust those wolves have cost us. It is not just about killing elk. There were way more irons in the fire. RMEF had some muscle to offer. But they hid in the closet while the rest of us were whacked. Now they send me a request to be a member. Ha Ha Ha.
Ron
 
If you think that the RMEF had enough money and clout to fight the Federal Government and Courts that sided with them and the antis on something that they had no chance of winning, then there is no sense trying to discuss it any further with you!
 
Alone they didn't, but they could have JOINED the fight in the beginning. Isn't that what they did at the end? They joined after membership was tanking and they knew to keep their money rolling in they had to do something. That is when they decided to do something. The fact that they sat on the sideline and LET it happen without doing a dang thing. They could have done something.
Ron
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-12 AT 09:07PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-12 AT 09:07?PM (MST)

They could have thrown a bunch of money at a losing hand...glad they didnt. Smart move on their part.

Go back and read BigFins reply.

Your arguments make as much sense as a soup sandwich.

BTW, I missed the picture of the wolf you shot this year...
 
So you wouldn't call 911 to get help for someone either? I didn't get a wolf. I didn't get a Bear or a Mountain lion either. Did you post a picture of each, or is that another losing had you don't play? Ron

BTW, soup in a bread bowl is not bad. A little off topic but what ever.
 
The crybabys have ruined RMEF, for years they stayed out of politics, focusing on habitat issues, I noticed the first shift when the official magazine changed its logo from habitat to hunt, reflecting the typical hunter and gun owner paranoia that everyone is out to get us, then came the wolf issue.
Those wolf introductions were going to happen, RMEF couldn't have done anything at all, and they only damaged themselves by cowering to the threats of the emotional uneducated sector within their membership
RMEFs reputation seems completely damaged, and they are now little different than another self promoting hunting rag, catering to the commercialization of wildlife and drawing us into a relatively smaller circle, Idahoron seems typical in that he can't see the forest for the trees.
 
They could have done alot,they had the influence to get the ears of people who make decisions.BUT they didnt even try,they didnt even make an attempt to pretend to care.Worthless bunch of assclowns.

My bone is no stranger to
great envy!
 
mtshedhedz and piper, you should put your money where your mouth is' and start a club of your own, and show us assclowns how to do it, and when you have done a tenth of what the rmef have done for wildlife. ill kiss your ass. but till then kiss mine,,,
 
mtshedhedz---You should realize that most of the organizations like RMEF are set up to do habitat work and not to lobby the Feds and individual states on stuff like the NRA is set up and has it's own section and PAC to fight for our gun rights. Can I assume you are an NRA member? IMHO I really think you are chastizing a group that's doing a lot of good on the ground and really isn't set up to do what you are saying they should have done some time ago. I do think they could have at least polled their members years ago and if directed to do so they could have written letters under the RMEF banner using their large membership numbers as clout. They didn't see it that way until a lot of folks raised a rucus, started dropping their memberships as I did, and now they are at least using their members voices to help in the fight, even though they may be a little late doing so. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt because we all make mistakes and hopefully learn from them!
 
My money is now going to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/

They will end up preserving a lot of habitat, and will keep the wild in wildlife, and not cave to the ATV lobby like they did in HR1581. The RMEF needs some competition otherwise they will keep on doing what they are now, and put their own politcal motives ahead of their members. BTW - Anyone know what CEO Dave Allen and the RMEF board gets paid?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-12-12 AT 01:31PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-12-12 AT 01:29?PM (MST)

MAT,

I'm a member of BCHA as well...but I still dont see the need to bash the RMEF over a bill they no longer support.

Just doesnt make sense.

BTW, when the elk foundation came out in support of 1581, I emailed the RMEF along with a lot of other hunters I know. I can assure you THAT is why the RMEF switched positions.

Its done, its over with...time to move on to something productive. The RMEF no longer supports 1581...period...end of story.

It takes a pretty good group/person to admit they were wrong, own it...and then correct the problem (hint).
 
problem is they should never supported it in the first place, no way no how, the other problem is what are they going to support next? and is this the path they have decided to take after all those years of staying out of politics?
 
I tend to agree with you on the RMEF staying out of the politics.

However, in todays world, thats just about impossible to do. Mainly because the Federal and State legislatures have been gerry-mandering in wildlife and land issues a lot more lately.

Almost impossible to not become political if you're a conservation group/organization...nature of the new beast.

I spend wayyy more time writing politicians than I do biologists.

Just sayin'...
 
Yep, it's a shame, but organizations almost need a full time lobbyist nowadsys the way things are going.
 
As a 501(c)3 organization you cannot have a lobbyist, and you cannot directly lobby legislators. You can't get political. Yet they did, and never told any of their members. Some got lucky and found out to write letters to get them to pull support, but if you didn't they never would have. That's my beef. We got lucky, who knows what they say behind closed doors now that we know they did this.

Pretty good salary for living in MT, I'm sure Allen is more concerned about keeping it then fessing up for the mistake. He had to support HR 1581 or else this never would have happened.
 
Mat---That's very interesting and if that's the case how can SFW get away with having Suzanne Gilstrap do what most would cionsider lobbying? What am I missing here?
 
MAT,

They didnt lobby, they wrote a letter of support...then withdrew it once they realized what was in the bill.

Nobody is questioning that they should have found out the facts FIRST.

I can assure you that I was wayyy more critical of their original stance on this than you ever will be. I raked them over the coals pretty hard.

There is nothing wrong with keeping these groups informed and on their toes, in fact I'd guess even the RMEF encourages same.

But, once you have their attention and they reverse their decision, I dont find it necessary to beat a dead horse.

The point was made and the RMEF paid a price for their original stance. They've made some corrections and are now much more pro-active in their approach on this and other legislation that will impact wildlife. Their recent letter in opposition of HB2072 in Arizona is a classic example...I think they're getting the train back on track.
 
Yep, I maybe beating a dead horse but how do I know it's dead? You said they made corrections, how would I ever know that? They never said anything about this, other than the 2 letters to the bill?s sponsors. If you read my previous posts this is their biggest mistake IMO. Sure, they reversed their support after the membership that knew about it complained, but the silence on this indicates there were no corrections. Otherwise an apology to the members listing the corrections would have been done. No one on the board resigned, and Allen is still CEO. Nothing that I can see, as a 20+ year member, changed.

I thought lobbying was directly advising legislators on legislation? A letter to their members telling them to call their legislators isn't, but a letter to legislators is lobbying. Hey, if they want to get involved we could use their help with mining legislation that will destroy tens of 1000?s of acres of elk habitat in WI. But that might go against their own personal political affiliations, as we have to believe was the basis for HR1581 because we were never told what happened and why.
 

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