Randy, I agree, great to have an organization that does not play it safe and sit on the sidelines. Do you know, in this case, was RMEF invited to participate in the Commision hearings? By whom?
I do not know.
I had to go back and read the RMEF mission statement.
The mission of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage.
In support of our mission, the RMEF is committed to: conserving, restoring and enhancing natural habitats; promoting the sound management of wild elk, which may be hunted or otherwise enjoyed; restoring elk to their native ranges; and educating members and the public about habitat conservation and our hunting heritage.
In my opinion, RMEF endorsing a widespread shoulder seasons does not match the mission statement. I am sure some will disagree, but that is my opinion.
I am sure if a sliding scale was provided that ranged from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" there would be opinions that are all along that spectrum, with the normal bell curve pattern peaking smewhere. Where that bell curve of support/disagreement would peak, I don't know.
But, going all the way back to when some of this was proposed in the 2015 legislature, the feedback from RMEF members and volunteers WHO TOOK THE TIME TO CONTACT HQ was far more in favor of expanded seasons and expanded opportunity.
Yet, it is not merely member/volunteer feedback that forms RMEF positions. We have trained biologists on staff who interact with agency personnel from all the state agencies. We have people who are involved in the policy side. We have key volunteers who are involved in the policy side. All that is weighed in the context of what these very experienced and professional minds decide is within our mission, best for elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage.
With most any point of argument I have read, there is a counter point that can be made on herd health, habitat health, and hunting opportunity. An agency sending out such a proposal is going to advocate the reasons they feel it is a better alternative than the status quo. The job of RMEF staff is to consider all of that and guide policy.
I can say that for anyone to imply that these decisions are made for financial purposes is way off base. I have sat in and watched some of these higher-level policy positions be formed, with this issue not being what I would term a high policy decision that the Board policy committee will weigh in on. I've been on the policy committee since early 2012. I've never seen/heard finances enter the conversations in any of the position statements that involve the Board policy committee. And I am confident and comfortable that the position statements formed by senior staff do not place any emphasis on financial considerations.
When folks do make the implication that we on the RMEF Board worry about the financial outcomes of our policies we give to staff for our guiding principles, they lose a lot of respect with me. To me, those making such claims look to be grasping for straws to make a dramatic claim that further divides the discussion among those with supposed honorable motives and those who are somehow tainted in their motives. And, they do so to make sure they look honorable and anyone with a slightly different opinion is somehow tainted. I've seen become very pervasive in the attack strategy used in MT political/policy discussions. Maybe that just comes with the territory of being on the inside and getting to watch some of the bigger policy discussions occur.
I am in a small box. Most everyone I am hearing from is not in favor of the shoulder seasons as currently porposed. Apparently that is not the case and not what RMEF is hearing?
That is not what RMEF staff is hearing/has heard from members and volunteers, though some did contact RMEF as being opposed. Probably answered some of that above.
