But think of the habitat that could be protected with that amount

[Deleted member 28227]

As i was eating lunch and reading this thread, I heard my first anti-Prop 114 radio ad, wonder if that was part of what RMEF contributed to?

I also thought this tidbit from the RMEF release was interesting:
“It is also important to understand the same out-of-state environmental groups funding this forced wolf introduction also filed lawsuit after lawsuit to try to stop management of wolves in the Northern Rockies. It took an act of Congress to finally stop them,” added Weaver. “One of those groups also filed a lawsuit just last summer seeking to force the government to introduce grizzly bears into Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona (including the Grand Canyon) and six other states.”

Where do I send my grizzly money?

 

[Big Fin]

I can think of many reasons why it would be a good investment of RMEF funds.

I'm no longer on the RMEF Board, so I don't know the details of where the money might come from. A few possibilities might exist beyond the assumptions implied.

What if a handful of donors who are concerned about "ballot box biology" came to RMEF with a restricted donation and asked them to accept the money for use in a campaign to fight the ballot initiative in Colorado? Should they decline such donation because it is restricted to the Colorado initiative?

Should they stand down when one of their underlying principles of "science-based management" is being put into question by a political initiative?

Should they invest in efforts that are supported by the tens of thousands of licensed hunters, resident and non-resident, who look to RMEF as an effective advocate for elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage, regardless of whether these hunters are RMEF members of not?

Point being, in this thread some assumptions are being made as to the source of this money, the calculus that a well-informed Board would go through in approving such expenditure that was surely recommended by qualified professionals/staff members, the importance of fulfilling the expectations of members and hunters, and the long-term consequences/benefits that they have assessed could result from supporting/not supporting such effort.

Large non-profit organizations have a strategic plan that is based on the principles of the mission. It is not a casual decision to make such expenditures. It is measured against the strategic plan and the underlying mission.

I'm confident that a lot of thought went into this decision, based on information most of us would not be privy to.

I send RMEF my money and donate my time with confidence that they are prudent and thoughtful in how they expend their money and invest their credibility.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Valiant effort. But I cant imagine this doesn't pass.

Are there other legal options once it passes? Can the feds stymie the effort since they'll have to move the wolves across state lines? Can the CPW sandbag it or count the natural movement as "reintroduction" and call it a day? Is there another thread that discusses the logistics of this topic dispassionately and without vitriol?

 

[BuzzH]

I also think its a bit disingenuous to bag on the RMEF over what happened in MT/ID/WY in the past and what's going on now.

When the wolves were reintroduced to MT/WY/ID there was overwhelming support for the reintroduction efforts. For a lot of reasons, it made sense to reintroduce wolves as they were already well established in MT by the time the reintroduction happened.

I also don't blame the RMEF for staying out it for the most part in the mid-90's as the reintroduction was NOT a ballot box initiative, went through NEPA, followed (mostly) the ESA, and everyone in the US got a say. That's the way the process SHOULD work, (again mostly).

What's happening in CO right now, isn't even in the same ballpark. Its not being put through the NEPA process, its not a thing where we all have a say, its not being supported or researched by experts from multiple Federal and State agencies. Most importantly its not being put through the public process, its strictly ballot box biology.

I think anyone that cares about the North American Model, whether its reintroducing black footed ferrets, bighorn sheep, or anything else, there should be a public process followed. EA's, EIS's, NEPA etc. should be the process used, not the ballot box that is being used by CO on this issue. Science based management is very, if not the most important part of the NAM that we need to keep intact, IMO.

For that reason alone, whether or not you agree with having wolves on the landscape or not in Colorado, I think all the NGO's that support the NAM should be opposing any ballot biology in any State. Again, in my opinion.

I don't think its fair to beat the RMEF up in both cases, as they just aren't/weren't the same situation.

 

[MTGomer]

Where do I send my grizzly money?

Grizzlies on the Mogollom rim would sure thin out the Phoenix Covid campers that have been trashing the place for 7 months.

 

[LuketheDog]

Grizzlies on the Mogollom rim would sure thin out the Phoenix Covid campers that have been trashing the place for 7 months.

Likewise for the I-70 corridor and Front Range in CO...

 

[MTGamecock]

The RMEF has certainly done some things in the past that have made me wonder, but let's not forget that they are still doing amazing work that few others are. I am of the mind that one of the chief virtues of conservation in the moment we currently live in is measured in acres, because those are disappearing fast.


Last week the RMEF closed on Section 1 in the map below in the northern Bull Mountains south of Boulder, MT. Securing access to critical elk habitat to the public to not only one section of land that was formerly private, but to the section to the south that was, prior to this purchase, also inaccessible.

View attachment 156628

I'm glad to hear that! I hunt in that area and the checkerboard pattern all over HD 370 is challenging.

 

[Irrelevant]

I can think of many reasons why it would be a good investment of RMEF funds.

I'm no longer on the RMEF Board, so I don't know the details of where the money might come from. A few possibilities might exist beyond the assumptions implied.

What if a handful of donors who are concerned about "ballot box biology" came to RMEF with a restricted donation and asked them to accept the money for use in a campaign to fight the ballot initiative in Colorado? Should they decline such donation because it is restricted to the Colorado initiative?

Should they stand down when one of their underlying principles of "science-based management" is being put into question by a political initiative?

Should they invest in efforts that are supported by the tens of thousands of licensed hunters, resident and non-resident, who look to RMEF as an effective advocate for elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage, regardless of whether these hunters are RMEF members of not?

Point being, in this thread some assumptions are being made as to the source of this money, the calculus that a well-informed Board would go through in approving such expenditure that was surely recommended by qualified professionals/staff members, the importance of fulfilling the expectations of members and hunters, and the long-term consequences/benefits that they have assessed could result from supporting/not supporting such effort.

Large non-profit organizations have a strategic plan that is based on the principles of the mission. It is not a casual decision to make such expenditures. It is measured against the strategic plan and the underlying mission.

I'm confident that a lot of thought went into this decision, based on information most of us would not be privy to.

I send RMEF my money and donate my time with confidence that they are prudent and thoughtful in how they expend their money and invest their credibility.

There are plenty of assumptions being thrown about by both sides. The assumption that this is a good move by RMEF simply because it was made by thoughtful board, or that it's part of a strategic mission, or that it's related to science-based management, are all "sure, maybes", but that doesn't impact the validity of members, who also send in there hard earned money, that are concerned that Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is turning into Rocky Mountain Anti-predator Foundation.

If they're going to broadly support science-based management as a stand alone topic, then I hope they start up some campaigns to promote a healthy Everglades water management system, feral cat removal on Kauai, and wild steelhead reserves in Puget Sound.

Healthy habitat = more elk. Plain and simple. It's the bread and butter of what RMEF does and what has gain them so much support.

Wolves are coming to CO whether it's by ballot or by paw. So spending 200k to slow something that will be inevitable seems like wasted resources. But sure, I guess if the money was donated for that exact purpose, then they can have at it.

 

[COEngineer]

There are plenty of assumptions being thrown about by both sides. The assumption that this is a good move by RMEF simply because it was made by thoughtful board, or that it's part of a strategic mission, or that it's related to science-based management, are all "sure, maybes", but that doesn't impact the validity of members, who also send in there hard earned money, that are concerned that Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is turning into Rocky Mountain Anti-predator Foundation.

If they're going to broadly support science-based management as a stand alone topic, then I hope they start up some campaigns to promote a healthy Everglades water management system, feral cat removal on Kauai, and wild steelhead reserves in Puget Sound.

Healthy habitat = more elk. Plain and simple. It's the bread and butter of what RMEF does and what has gain them so much support.

Wolves are coming to CO whether it's by ballot or by paw. So spending 200k to slow something that will be inevitable seems like wasted resources. But sure, I guess if the money was donated for that exact purpose, then they can have at it.

You make some valid points, but then you lost me with FL, HI, and Seattle. What do those places have to do with elk?

 

[Ben Lamb]

There are plenty of assumptions being thrown about by both sides. The assumption that this is a good move by RMEF simply because it was made by thoughtful board, or that it's part of a strategic mission, or that it's related to science-based management, are all "sure, maybes", but that doesn't impact the validity of members, who also send in there hard earned money, that are concerned that Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is turning into Rocky Mountain Anti-predator Foundation.

If they're going to broadly support science-based management as a stand alone topic, then I hope they start up some campaigns to promote a healthy Everglades water management system, feral cat removal on Kauai, and wild steelhead reserves in Puget Sound.

Healthy habitat = more elk. Plain and simple. It's the bread and butter of what RMEF does and what has gain them so much support.

Wolves are coming to CO whether it's by ballot or by paw. So spending 200k to slow something that will be inevitable seems like wasted resources. But sure, I guess if the money was donated for that exact purpose, then they can have at it.

RMEF has, since it's inception, advocated for and against issued based on the direction their board & staff set. I have not always agreed with that, such as the Roadless Area Release Act of 2012, or the wolf bounty bill of 2019, but I've always respected their approach and the dedication to their mission. I think, under Kyle Weaver, that decision making process has been narrowed & been more focused than in the past. I know that their professional staff are some of the most thoughtful & pragmatic conservation professionals I've worked with. Luckily for us, they have thick skin too.

I disagree w/them on some of the tactics used in the past relative to large carnivores, but I am 110% on board with them coming out against this initiative. I have friends on both sides of this issue, but RMEF's position that this is not how to engage in wildlife conservation is spot on, and that seems to be where the nexus between getting involved and the mission meet.

If there were elk in Florida, Hawaii or in the Puget Sound, I would imagine RMEF would be there to advocate for their mission.

 

[Irrelevant]

You make some valid points, but then you lost me with FL, HI, and Seattle. What do those places have to do with elk?

About as much as this ballot measure does.

 

[WapitiBob]

I’m still waiting for the usfws to tell me this ballot measure will force them to do anything.

 

[TOGIE]

Valiant effort. But I cant imagine this doesn't pass.

Are there other legal options once it passes? Can the feds stymie the effort since they'll have to move the wolves across state lines? Can the CPW sandbag it or count the natural movement as "reintroduction" and call it a day? Is there another thread that discusses the logistics of this topic dispassionately and without vitriol?

i'm operating under the assumption that it's a foregone conclusion this passes

but i think the feds can absolutely put a stop to it if it's passed.

i believe the ballot language itself even mentions that such proposal for introduction could be subject to federal approval.

trump may be our hero

 

[beginnerhunter]

i'm operating under the assumption that it's a foregone conclusion this passes

but i think the feds can absolutely put a stop to it if it's passed.

i believe the ballot language itself even mentions that such proposal for introduction could be subject to federal approval.

trump may be our hero

Maybe I'm wrong, but it probably matters a lot more what the Colorado delegation thinks about this, especially Bennett and Hickenlooper.

 

[TOGIE]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it probably matters a lot more what the Colorado delegation thinks about this, especially Bennett and Hickenlooper.

i agree completely. the trump comment was tongue in cheek.

but maybe, just just just maybe, the USFWS will look at the science and the proposal and see problems. perhaps they will look at the science and proposal and not see problems.

who knows.

but unfortunately, i would only view the RMEF money as a waste because this ballot proposal is a runaway train to wolf town, no matter how you slice it, i believe