Money well spent?
- Thread starter mtmiller
- Start date
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Great letter by the RMEF. I'm sure glad to see them offering up money to finance the reduction of wolf numbers in Montana.
I just might have to save up some money and join the RMEF again.
I just might have to save up some money and join the RMEF again.
dan.kirkpatrick
Well-known member
thanks rmef,,,less wolfs= more elk.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,766
Can't say I disagree with the gist of the letter. However...How about allowing trapping, baiting, and other effective methods to be employed by licensed, paying hunters instead of FWP paying a contractor to lower wolf numbers. Lower NR tag fees to $50 and every NR elk and deer hunter will be buying a license.
Let's not stop there. How about getting some sane numbers to the EMP and reduce the number of antlerless tags.
Wolves are not the entire problem.
Let's not stop there. How about getting some sane numbers to the EMP and reduce the number of antlerless tags.
Wolves are not the entire problem.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Not true. Dan, you don't comprehend much that's put on this web site. Fin Gave everyone a lesson. http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=250136
Fin's post clearly shows that even if you remove all wolves, lion, bears, your still not going to be able to increase elk numbers. The reason, is because of a law passed in 2003. HB 42 said that all elk hunting districts in the state would have elk objectives set by social concerns from the public. Those "Social" concerns were mainly driven by the livestock industry. They were the social concern, and they picked objectives that we had went past years earlier. The second part of the bill said that the MTFW&Ps would get those elk populations at or BELOW that number by 2009.
So here we sit, with thousands of elk that have went home in the back of pickup trucks, and we're still at or over the those socially acceptable numbers in 66% of the HD's. Hell, I live in the Root, (Wolf central) and we are at or over in 4 of 5 HD's. Our elk herds are a fraction of what they were in 2004.
Bambistew
Well-known member
Is it me, or is this similar to SWF's stance on predator control? What small small shred of respect I had for the RMEF just went out the window.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Thanks Bambi.....figured I was alone on this one. I am not a big fan of my $$$ going to pay a contractor for predator control.
You're not alone.
I'm ok with it. As long as they set it up through a special donation account like they said. If current RMEF members don't want their money going towards wolf management, then they don't have to donate to it. As long as the management stays withing FWP, I will support it.
Me three.
However, RMEF can do what it wants with its money.
Page one of this letter is fantastic and I think they knocked that part out of the park.
Interestingly enough, the Legislature, under SB 348, directed that FWP spend $900,000 on wolf management. Out of that, $110,000 is given to WS to perform their tasks. That amount hasn't changed in a decade, and it should be increased to deal with conflicts. The rest is to be used to fund the wolf specialists, trapping and collaring, studying predator/prey dynamics and generally managing a critter that takes a lot of time and effort, especially in fragmented landscapes with high human populations (as oppose to AK and Canada).
The problem lies with Wildlife Services, and their inability to maintain a budget at the congressional level. Now folks are looking to hunters and anglers to pay for wolf control. HB 622 created a statutory appropriation out of the General Fund to the tune of approximately $300,000 for the livestock loss and mitigation board, and also created a a new account that allows part of the per capita tax on livestock to be put into a predatory animal account to pay for WS to fly and kill critters.
After all of this (approximately $1.5 million of state funds), some folks still want more money and want it right now to give to WS so that they can continue to fly and kill coyotes for sheep producers.
So I'm not sure that there really is a funding issue, especially when we see that conflicts were down last year (according to WS/FWP numbers of wolves that were removed for depredation based on complaints).
As to predator control, worked so well in Utah they cut 13,000 mule deer tags.
Since I am on the policy committee and got to give, and listen to, input prior to that letter going out, I will make some comments that might provide context.
It was very clear that this must be a voluntary donation account. No membership dues, no other grants, no other mission-related money would go to this fund. Maybe the letter does not adequately explain that, but that is how this fund is set up.
All of us want our membership dues and other contribution to go to habitat and access. That is the mission of RMEF.
Yet, many members want to make donations specifically to wolf management, and have been looking for a mechanism to do that. This account was an attempt to let them do that and in the process, help with a part of wolf management that some feel has been a victim of Congressional funding.
The reason given by many members for this desire is that they aware of the funding decreases that Wildlife Services have been provided in Congressional budgets. Ben pointed out that WS has been unable to maintain budget requests in Congress. Why, who knows? The fact is that their budgets are less, or flat and not keeping up with inflation.
The WS budget problem in Congress is not the responsibility of the state, or any other group. Some, specifically SFW and the wool growers, came to the MT legislature last session, wanting to take license money for WS predator management and make up for the Federal budget cuts WS had incurred.
We all fought to kill that bill. It would have cost FWP P-R money, as it would be a diversion of funds. FWP already lost that battle with the USFWS in 1999, when a similar program was in place, causing us to repay almost $1 million of matching P-R dollars.
None of that changes the fact that WS does not have the budget to continue to do the amount of wolf control they have done previously. If some feel that WS is part of the management equation outlined in our Wolf Management Plan, then how do you help WS with funding in a manner that does not obligate the state or divert license dollars?
Can a voluntary donation account help with that, and not force the hand of FWP or impose costs on already tight state budgets? I think it can. And that is what RMEF decided to offer.
WS has spent less time in the air/on the ground dealing with wolf issues in Montana, due to budget cuts. Lack of WS funding for airtime and interdiction affects wolf take that was expected to occur by WS when the MT quotas and objectives were set.
It is illustrated in the fact that when quotas were set for the wolf hunting harvest in Montana, the target was set with consideration that Wildlife Services would take at least as many wolves as in previous years. Given we had more wolves that prior years, it was expected that WS would at least take that mount, if not more.
Thus, the MT hunting quotas were set taking into account the expect wolf kill by Wildlife Services. Since WS budgets were cut, the amount of take from Wildlife Services in the last year was about half of what was expected. Ben indicates that the reduced take by WS was due to lack of conflicts. Others argue it was due to lack of budgets to respond to the wolf-livestock conflicts.
Many people are concerned about that and have approached the Elk Foundation to set up a voluntary account to provide funds to make up for the budget cuts WS has had. These individuals are willing to help fund this part of the wolf management plan, even if the Federal government will not, or, as is the case with state P-R money, where FWP cannot legally fund it .
Being on the policy committee since last October has opened my eyes as to how many people look at the RMEF for help to fix problems they feel exist. It is an amazing number of requests that get made; funding request, sign on of letters, legislative involvement, you name it.
Many requests come from people/groups not necessarily coming from my perspective of a public land hunter living in the west. Yet, they are all members of RMEF and their requests must be considered. Requests not necessarily agreed to, but at least considered.
The committee takes every request and looks at it carefully. I look at it from this perspective - Does it fit the mission of benefiting elk/elk habitat, and serve the benefit of membership? In other words, is it within the mission of RMEF?
I also have jaded vision in wanting to make sure it is best for elk hunters/elk hunting. Specifically the public land elk hunter. Maybe I shouldn’t add that, but I do.
I felt comfortable that a voluntary donation fund, completely separate from RMEF membership money, banquet money, etc. would meet all the criteria. Especially so, if those funds were used to augment a part of the wolf management plan that is being impacted by Congressional budget process. And even further benefit, if the effort did nothing to force FWP to fund WS budgets.
I understand some may disagree with RMEF doing this, even if it is a completely voluntary fund. Yet, I feel RMEF cannot be advocates for elk, elk habitat, elk hunters, elk hunting, without trying to help states with their management plans that do affect elk, as is the case with the wolf mamagement plan. This voluntary funding is an attempt to help with that- not coompletely solve the problem, but help in some way.
Listening to/reading comments, then reading the release, I do think we could have done a better job of explaining this fund, its purpose, and how it was decided upon.
Reading the comments on the thread here, I think it kind of reflects the mix of what RMEF members might feel. Some hate the idea, some think it is pretty good if done properly, and some want even more funding from RMEF.
No way everyone will be completely happy, so we must look to the mission and the guidelines it provides. In my case, I feel we have done the right thing as we balance our mission and our desire for members to help fund a problem they see.
Hopefully it will be communicated better next time, which hopefully makes for more consensus among hunters and RMEF members.
It was very clear that this must be a voluntary donation account. No membership dues, no other grants, no other mission-related money would go to this fund. Maybe the letter does not adequately explain that, but that is how this fund is set up.
All of us want our membership dues and other contribution to go to habitat and access. That is the mission of RMEF.
Yet, many members want to make donations specifically to wolf management, and have been looking for a mechanism to do that. This account was an attempt to let them do that and in the process, help with a part of wolf management that some feel has been a victim of Congressional funding.
The reason given by many members for this desire is that they aware of the funding decreases that Wildlife Services have been provided in Congressional budgets. Ben pointed out that WS has been unable to maintain budget requests in Congress. Why, who knows? The fact is that their budgets are less, or flat and not keeping up with inflation.
The WS budget problem in Congress is not the responsibility of the state, or any other group. Some, specifically SFW and the wool growers, came to the MT legislature last session, wanting to take license money for WS predator management and make up for the Federal budget cuts WS had incurred.
We all fought to kill that bill. It would have cost FWP P-R money, as it would be a diversion of funds. FWP already lost that battle with the USFWS in 1999, when a similar program was in place, causing us to repay almost $1 million of matching P-R dollars.
None of that changes the fact that WS does not have the budget to continue to do the amount of wolf control they have done previously. If some feel that WS is part of the management equation outlined in our Wolf Management Plan, then how do you help WS with funding in a manner that does not obligate the state or divert license dollars?
Can a voluntary donation account help with that, and not force the hand of FWP or impose costs on already tight state budgets? I think it can. And that is what RMEF decided to offer.
WS has spent less time in the air/on the ground dealing with wolf issues in Montana, due to budget cuts. Lack of WS funding for airtime and interdiction affects wolf take that was expected to occur by WS when the MT quotas and objectives were set.
It is illustrated in the fact that when quotas were set for the wolf hunting harvest in Montana, the target was set with consideration that Wildlife Services would take at least as many wolves as in previous years. Given we had more wolves that prior years, it was expected that WS would at least take that mount, if not more.
Thus, the MT hunting quotas were set taking into account the expect wolf kill by Wildlife Services. Since WS budgets were cut, the amount of take from Wildlife Services in the last year was about half of what was expected. Ben indicates that the reduced take by WS was due to lack of conflicts. Others argue it was due to lack of budgets to respond to the wolf-livestock conflicts.
Many people are concerned about that and have approached the Elk Foundation to set up a voluntary account to provide funds to make up for the budget cuts WS has had. These individuals are willing to help fund this part of the wolf management plan, even if the Federal government will not, or, as is the case with state P-R money, where FWP cannot legally fund it .
Being on the policy committee since last October has opened my eyes as to how many people look at the RMEF for help to fix problems they feel exist. It is an amazing number of requests that get made; funding request, sign on of letters, legislative involvement, you name it.
Many requests come from people/groups not necessarily coming from my perspective of a public land hunter living in the west. Yet, they are all members of RMEF and their requests must be considered. Requests not necessarily agreed to, but at least considered.
The committee takes every request and looks at it carefully. I look at it from this perspective - Does it fit the mission of benefiting elk/elk habitat, and serve the benefit of membership? In other words, is it within the mission of RMEF?
I also have jaded vision in wanting to make sure it is best for elk hunters/elk hunting. Specifically the public land elk hunter. Maybe I shouldn’t add that, but I do.
I felt comfortable that a voluntary donation fund, completely separate from RMEF membership money, banquet money, etc. would meet all the criteria. Especially so, if those funds were used to augment a part of the wolf management plan that is being impacted by Congressional budget process. And even further benefit, if the effort did nothing to force FWP to fund WS budgets.
I understand some may disagree with RMEF doing this, even if it is a completely voluntary fund. Yet, I feel RMEF cannot be advocates for elk, elk habitat, elk hunters, elk hunting, without trying to help states with their management plans that do affect elk, as is the case with the wolf mamagement plan. This voluntary funding is an attempt to help with that- not coompletely solve the problem, but help in some way.
Listening to/reading comments, then reading the release, I do think we could have done a better job of explaining this fund, its purpose, and how it was decided upon.
Reading the comments on the thread here, I think it kind of reflects the mix of what RMEF members might feel. Some hate the idea, some think it is pretty good if done properly, and some want even more funding from RMEF.
No way everyone will be completely happy, so we must look to the mission and the guidelines it provides. In my case, I feel we have done the right thing as we balance our mission and our desire for members to help fund a problem they see.
Hopefully it will be communicated better next time, which hopefully makes for more consensus among hunters and RMEF members.
Devil Diver Down
Well-known member
I don't have a problem with a separate, voluntary fund. If it were part of the general fund, I'd have a problem with it. As it is, seems to me they're just organizing like-minded individuals who want to contribute money to get an issue solved.
I don't know, but I will find out and post the answer here.
I suspect it might be pending a decision of whether or not FWP is interested in the offer, but not sure.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
That's the way to do it. Those that complain the most should pony up the bills. I like it.
Straight from the Chief Operating Officer:
Randy,
That's a great explanation. As I said, RMEF can do what it wants with its money, and I'll not complain. I think this was a good faith effort by the Foundation to actively engage in solving a problem. If it's not my way, I certainly won't bash them for being positively engaged, which they are.
That's a great explanation. As I said, RMEF can do what it wants with its money, and I'll not complain. I think this was a good faith effort by the Foundation to actively engage in solving a problem. If it's not my way, I certainly won't bash them for being positively engaged, which they are.
M
MN Public Hunter
Guest
What I think is funny is the RMEF concerned about 600 wolves. We have 3000 of these in MN, whose going to help us out? 
Similar threads
