Hard to tell the difference between SFW and RMEF these days.

Gerald Martin said:
Not all lions share the same preference of prey. Elk make up a significant or majority of a lion’s diet in some areas. In other areas they don’t.
In the regions around Trout Creek whitetail deer have historically been the major food source of lions. A study done in the Bitterroot where there aren’t a high number of whitetails isn’t going to be reflective of all areas.

In this area lions, bears, elk and deer all coexisted in relative balance.

With the dispersal of wolves traveling down naturally from Canada joining with reintroduced wolves and their highly successful reproduction, elk have
changed their preferred areas. Just in the past 15 years we have observed what used to be small herds scattered throughout all the surrounding mountains congregating into larger herds on private land on the valley floor. By and large wolves do not follow them down since hunting and trapping has been allowed.

However, hunters have been decimating the bull population during hunting season as soon as they grow enough antler to be legal and venture onto land that allows hunting.

This terrain is heavily timbered and heavily roaded and fair chase hunting methods will never do more than offer a semblance of “managing” wolf numbers.

IMO, the “good old days “ from the mid 90’s till about 2008 were a historic anomaly in the past several hundred years and that kind of elk hunting will never be seen again in my lifetime.

I know the regional reality of this area isn’t the same as other areas in MT. I understand the frustration and dissatisfaction many local hunters have with the current state of affairs however all their rage and indignation isn’t going to fundamentally change reality.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the original article about Idaho?

Idaho study finds mountain lions kill more elk than wolves

15 years of data analyzed for the study
www.gohunt.com www.gohunt.com
 
Wildlife officials in Idaho estimate there are more than 1,000 wolves in the state as of January 2020. That figure is more than 600 percent larger than minimum recovery goals of 150 wolves and 15 packs initially established for the population.
Click to expand...

This is the first paragraph of the press release. I'd argue that regardless of the 12,000 great volunteers and great work RMEF has done in the past, and most likely the future, that this sounds more like an SFW press release to me. I'm a member and don't want this type of misleading info spewed and let my feeling be known. I question the motives with this type of hyperbole and I think, or hope that the writer is more capable than he sounds. It brings nothing to the table.
 
We live in a world of hyperbole, click bait, and general anger hidden behind an anonymous tag. I didn’t think the headline was that bad. I tend to think we portray our views/biases on the article, even if it was written in a neutral way. I could easily rewrite this article and rephrase sentences in a more extreme way for either “side”. I have zero doubt on that.
 
SS, your title is more extreme in making a personal point than the RMEF statement you've quoted.

It credits the perspective shared within the first sentence of SAJ-99's post.

I respect your opinion though disagree w/ your comparison.
 
Seems even the RMEF can experience mission creep.

The mission of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage.

Being absent from the shoulder season discussion while aligning with SFW on wolves seems to show where current leadership is leaning.

Shoulder season leading to commercialization of elk are definitely a threat to the future of elk. Sold late and early cow hunts on private while land owners reap the profits of bull hunts should definitely be on RMEF radar.

FYI I have been a member since they delivered Bugle magazines to the little sporting goods store I worked at in the back of a truck.
 
Last edited:
shoots-straight said:
Well other than the conservation aspects.

Look at this link to a recent News article and tell me what's wrong headed with it. You might want to read the info from the department that came in a link.

Maybe they are using the old SFW cash cow of crying wolf for membership.

Wolf Hyperbole out of RMEF
Click to expand...

There is nothing "wrong headed" with it.
The RMEF simply summarized some information from the IDFG press release.

If this exact same summary was presented by another organization, what would the conspiracy be?


The only hyperbole I see is your insinuation.
 
Look at these headlines and see how you may react to each
Idaho Wolf Population Tops 1,000
Idaho Wolf Population Drops to Near 1,000
or more extreme
Humans Primary Cause as Idaho Wolf Population Drops by 35%

All accurate reflections of the data, but each could initiate a different emotional response in readers. This is just a sign of the times. The responsibility is on the individual to maintain some objectivity. Unfortunately, humans fail miserably at that.
 
walking buffalo said:
There is nothing "wrong headed" with it.
The RMEF simply summarized some information from the IDFG press release.

If this exact same summary was presented by another organization, what would the conspiracy be?


The only hyperbole I see is your insinuation.
Click to expand...

That figure is more than 600 percent larger than minimum recovery goals of 150 wolves and 15 packs initially established for the population.
Click to expand...

The "Wrong Headed" part of this (that I'm sure they knew) is the 600 percent larger than the minimum recovery goals" portion. There was never a recovery "GOAL" of 150 wolves and 15 packs. That number represents the minimum number that triggers them to be Either listed on the ESL or Delisted. It was never a population objective like we have for elk. I don't fault you for not knowing, but they surely do, or had better. The hyped part was them saying there's 600 percent more than recovery goals. Very wrong headed.
 
Last edited:
shoots-straight said:
The "Wrong Headed" part of this (that I'm sure they knew) is the 600 percent larger than the minimum recovery goals" portion. There was never a recovery "GOAL" of 150 wolves and 15 packs. That number represents the minimum number that triggers them to be Either listed on the ESL or Delisted. It was never a population objective like we have for elk. I don't fault you for not knowing, but they surely do, or had better. The hyped part was them saying there's 600 percent more than recovery goals. Very wrong headed.
Click to expand...

Please educate me.
Are you saying that there was "never a recovery goal", or that the was a minimum recovery goal that is different from the 150/15?

From the RMEF - " That figure is more than 600 percent larger than minimum recovery goals of 150 wolves and 15 packs initially established for the population."

From IDFG - "the department maintained enough radio collared wolves to show there were more than 15 breeding pairs in the state and more than 150 total wolves. Those surveys were intended to show the wolf population exceeded targets needed to remove them from federal protection and oversight."

What you are describing as "Hype", is 100% factual in context with the IDFG press release.

Note how you edited out the word "minimum" in the bolded statement? Isn't that Hype? ;)

My point is simple, as SAJ noted, people tend to comprehend with a bias.
From another perspective, the RMEF release comes across as concise and quite neutral.
One would have to have other information to decide if the RMEF was predisposed to consider the 600% of minimum recovery goals to be a positive or a negative.
If a pro-wolf organization made the exact same comment, their advocates could read the same words as a victory speech.
Would you accuse the pro-wolf group as being wrong headed or hyping the data?
 
Well wolves are a cash cow for groups on both extreme ends of the spectrum. I guess RMEF is gonna get some while the getting is good. The amount of national orgs I support dwindles by the year.

I saw it posted in a different thread, but what other animals do hunters currently advocate for managing to the bare minimum? I don't think there are any....
 
walking buffalo said:
Please educate me.
Are you saying that there was "never a recovery goal", or that the was a minimum recovery goal that is different from the 150/15? What was spelled out was a minimum number that had to be met to trigger the delisting. There was never a objective number.

From the RMEF - " That figure is more than 600 percent larger than minimum recovery goals of 150 wolves and 15 packs initially established for the population." Hyperbole so you get all excited about wolf number being out of wack and join us in our crusade.

From IDFG - "the department maintained enough radio collared wolves to show there were more than 15 breeding pairs in the state and more than 150 total wolves. Those surveys were intended to show the wolf population exceeded targets needed to remove them from federal protection and oversight." The Target number is to trigger a delisting, or relisting if they should fall below that "TARGET" number.

What you are describing as "Hype", is 100% factual in context with the IDFG press release. Hype is implying there are 600 percent more wolves than some agreement.

Note how you edited out the word "minimum" in the bolded statement? Isn't that Hype? ;) ? Where are you talking. How about quoting where I did that.

My point is simple, as SAJ noted, people tend to comprehend with a bias.
From another perspective, the RMEF release comes across as concise and quite neutral. I disagree, their feeding the Anti frenzy using skewed statements. Same thing I've seen from other groups to rally membership to some extent. Some other things that aren't as benign as memberships too.
One would have to have other information to decide if the RMEF was predisposed to consider the 600% of minimum recovery goals to be a positive or a negative. See above.
If a pro-wolf organization made the exact same comment, their advocates could read the same words as a victory speech.
Would you accuse the pro-wolf group as being wrong headed or hyping the data? I don't read pro wolf propaganda and don't expect to see it published by RMEF either.
Click to expand...
 
Woof war is present on a national/global scale due to Center For Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice, Patagonia Actionworks funded organizations...

They reach a global naive cauldron of wolf lovers and their $$$ to directly oppose State management, hunting, trapping and even State employed/contracted, "assassin's", as one organization declares.

RMEF, among a few others battle for quality management of the wolf populations.

Hence the ENTIRE point of their media about Idaho's valued step to enhance counts for a more effective identification of increase, decrease of wolf numbers.

To each his/her own though.
 
Sytes said:
Woof war is present on a national/global scale due to SFW, Big Game Forever, Safari Club Itl, and other fossil fuel, Koch Brothers funded organizations...

They reach a global naive cauldron of wolf haters and their $$$ to directly oppose scientific management, the public trust and "wolf loving morons at the game & fish", as one organization declares.

RMEF, among a few others battle for a share of the revenue inherent to the discussion of the wolf populations.

Hence the ENTIRE point of their media about Idaho's valued step to enhance counts for a more effective identification of increase, decrease of wolf numbers.

To each his/her own though.
Click to expand...


FIFY

:)
 
Gerald Martin said:
I wonder if I will ever reach the status of having certain groups of people deify me and other groups demonize me for just being me?
Click to expand...

I can't stand that Gerald Martin guy. Nobody is that nice in real life. It's an act because he sells people to China in order to feed wolves that have been dropped off at a diversion dam by a black helicopter owned by George Soros and loaned out to FWP.


I think wolves are a metaphor for most people and their reactions to them are a window into their outlook on life.
Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of wisdom in this.
 
Gerald Martin said:
I wonder if I will ever reach the status of having certain groups of people deify me and other groups demonize me for just being me?

I think wolves are a metaphor for most people and their reactions to them are a window into their outlook on life.
Click to expand...
Just and FYI, if they do I will have your back buddy.
 
Ben Lamb said:
I can't stand that Gerald Martin guy. Nobody is that nice in real life. It's an act because he sells people to China in order to feed wolves that have been dropped off at a diversion dam by a black helicopter owned by George Soros and loaned out to FWP.
Click to expand...

You were fine until you had to go and expose my master plan. Expect a visit from my pal Hillary’s people.
 
Gerald Martin said:
I wonder if I will ever reach the status of having certain groups of people deify me and other groups demonize me for just being me?

I think wolves are a metaphor for most people and their reactions to them are a window into their outlook on life.
Click to expand...
Genghis Khan reached that status, Gerald. Civilized society had issues with his type, though. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hammsolo
Washington Wolf Policy Comments
Replies
2
Views
696
bigwhale
B
W
WI ELK, the story of a once in a lifetime hunt
6 7 8
Replies
150
Views
13K
SFC B
SFC B
P
Finally an equitable balance between resident and non resident shed hunting access.
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
7K
Watts307
Watts307
WYelker
A bull for the kid…
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
EastTNHunter
EastTNHunter
Dougfirtree
2022 Son's Trip Report
Replies
16
Views
1K
Chief23
C

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,109
Messages
1,947,417
Members
35,033
Latest member
Leejones

Share this page

Back
Top