RMEF Bailing on Blue Collar Sportsmen?

[SAJ-99]

That makes me wonder what percentage of their membership primarily hunts with outfitters

The correct number is what % of their revenue comes from members who hunt with outfitters. One person giving $10,000 is equal to 285 members paying the $35 for the mag.

 

[BenInMT]

Just figuring this out now?

 

[Ben Lamb]

501 (C)3's have zero limits when advocating for policy.

Lobbying is defined essentially as asking elected officials to vote one way or another on legislation. Not commissions on regulations.

 

[brocksw]

The correct number is what % of their revenue comes from members who hunt with outfitters. One person giving $10,000 is equal to 285 members paying the $35 for the mag.

So the rich guys can buy the politicians, the big ranches, the outfitters, the elk, the elk hunting, the FWP and the conservation organization.

Sounds legit.

 

[Big Fin]

After watching everything unfold in MT during 2021, RMEF basically stood idly by and said not a peep. I have to wonder if RMEF is bailing or has already bailed on blue collar sportsmen? Or does align with past actions? I would presume us regular folks make up a bulk of their membership. I would also assume that actively and publicly fighting some of this stuff would be felt in their pocket books, since the guide/outfitters and land owners who donate/contribute to their fundraising would likely withdraw that support. Yet, Issue after issue regarding MT elk management and they are no where to be found and don't have a good answer for why, anytime I've talked to their representatives.

I got your PM. Just back from other things.

Some of your other claims are without knowledge and understanding, at least from my six years on the Board. I think you used the term "assume" and "publicly."

You said you "assume" RMEF revenue from outfitters and landowners might influence their position or keep them from being involved in topics. You assume incorrectly. That revenue was very small when I was on the Board. So small that it had zero impact on any decisions the Board discussed when I was there and I suspect it is similar today. You make the insinuation that RMEF is beholden to these two groups and its completely false.

As for "publicly," from my experience, publicly calling out or making big noise in the press or on social media is not how RMEF does things. I can assure you that in the past legislative session when some were asking RMEF to be public, they were making calls and having meetings with folks that made a difference, even if those efforts weren't in the form of social media posts, membership blasts, or other "public" call outs. There is a great role for both the public and discrete methods and there are organizations that are good at both.

As for "nowhere to be found," you should call them and talk to the people who actually make the decisions on this stuff; not a volunteer, not committee member, rather the few at HQ charged with these responsibilities. I talked to them today. They are not ignoring the issue. Again, they are working differently than some of the groups who use the "public call out" method.

There seems to be the assumption that when RMEF picks of the phone or has a meeting that the Governor, the Director, or the Commission is going to do what RMEF says. I can assure you that Governors, Senators, Reps and others sometimes don't listen to RMEF any more than they will listen to 25,000 pissed off resident hunters. I know that first hand, as I chaired the Board Committee that made those decisions. It's not like RMEF walks in the room and every politician hands over the paper and pen to let RMEF write the deal. It would be nice if that was the case, but it's not.

Worth sharing separately so everyone can read what MOGA did last time RMEF was involved.

MOGA, RMEF, and Randy Newberg

Well, since the last four days of my life have been made very difficult by a few fringe elements in the Montana Outfitter and Guides Association (MOGA), I am going to post what has been going on. Makes me wonder if all the MOGA members know a few of their leaders are willing to use their...

www.hunttalk.com

To your quote above, the bigger issues isn't what MOGA did, but what RMEF did. When MOGA and WYOGA started their public campaign to try keep me off the RMEF Board in 2013, MOGA/WYOGA members said they would withhold donations from RMEF. RMEF laughed. I was voted to the Board for six years. And after that RMEF went about making sure no group would ever think they could hold RMEF hostage in that manner.

RMEF has had some folks on the Board who are outfitters and I served with some of them. They were good folks and good Board members. If RMEF makes a decision to be/not be involved in a topic, I would bet a large chunk of money that money from landowners and outfitters had nothing to do with that decision.

I suggest you call HQ and talk to the actual folks who make these decisions. I would bet what you get from them would be an answer completely within the policy guidelines RMEF uses in making any of these decisions. Those guidelines were adopted with a ton of consideration, a view on the long-term goals of the organization, and accountability to the mission of the organization. When I was there, every decision was considered and framed within those guidelines and most every published position had some who deemed it too soft, not enough, or some other term that made it obvious the claimant did not agree with the decision and/or how it was communicated.

I would suggest we work at solving the task at hand and let RMEF do their work in the manner they choose to do it.

 

[brocksw]

I got your PM. Just back from other things.

Some of your other claims are without knowledge and understanding, at least from my six years on the Board. I think you used the term "assume" and "publicly."

You said you "assume" RMEF revenue from outfitters and landowners might influence their position or keep them from being involved in topics. You assume incorrectly. That revenue was very small when I was on the Board. So small that it had zero impact on any decisions the Board discussed when I was there and I suspect it is similar today. You make the insinuation that RMEF is beholden to these two groups and its completely false.

As for "publicly," from my experience, publicly calling out or making big noise in the press or on social media is not how RMEF does things. I can assure you that in the past legislative session when some were asking RMEF to be public, they were making calls and having meetings with folks that made a difference, even if those efforts weren't in the form of social media posts, membership blasts, or other "public" call outs. There is a great role for both the public and discrete methods and there are organizations that are good at both.

As for "nowhere to be found," you should call them and talk to the people who actually make the decisions on this stuff; not a volunteer, not committee member, rather the few at HQ charged with these responsibilities. I talked to them today. They are not ignoring the issue. Again, they are working differently than some of the groups who use the "public call out" method.

There seems to be the assumption that when RMEF picks of the phone or has a meeting that the Governor, the Director, or the Commission is going to do what RMEF says. I can assure you that Governors, Senators, Reps and others sometimes don't listen to RMEF any more than they will listen to 25,000 pissed off resident hunters. I know that first hand, as I chaired the Board Committee that made those decisions. It's not like RMEF walks in the room and every politician hands over the paper and pen to let RMEF write the deal. It would be nice if that was the case, but it's not.



To your quote above, the bigger issues isn't what MOGA did, but what RMEF did. When MOGA and WYOGA started their public campaign to try keep me off the RMEF Board in 2013, MOGA/WYOGA members said they would withhold donations from RMEF. RMEF laughed. I was voted to the Board for six years. And after that RMEF went about making sure no group would ever think they could hold RMEF hostage in that manner.

RMEF has had some folks on the Board who are outfitters and I served with some of them. They were good folks and good Board members. If RMEF makes a decision to be/not be involved in a topic, I would bet a large chunk of money that money from landowners and outfitters had nothing to do with that decision.

I suggest you call HQ and talk to the actual folks who make these decisions. I would bet what you get from them would be an answer completely within the policy guidelines RMEF uses in making any of these decisions. Those guidelines were adopted with a ton of consideration, a view on the long-term goals of the organization, and accountability to the mission of the organization. When I was there, every decision was considered and framed within those guidelines and most every published position had some who deemed it too soft, not enough, or some other term that made it obvious the claimant did not agree with the decision and/or how it was communicated.

I would suggest we work at solving the task at hand and let RMEF do their work in the manner they choose to do it.

I may do just that Randy. Thank you for the reply.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don't always agree with RMEF, but they do good work. Just differently than others. Thanks for clearing this up, Randy.

 

[brocksw]

I don't always agree with RMEF, but they do good work. Just differently than others. Thanks for clearing this up, Randy.

Not sure if anything is cleared up, at least not the important question. But I certainly respect Randy's input, enough where I'd like to give RMEF the benefit of the doubt. But a phone call to the decision makers is certainly on my list of things to do.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Not sure if anything is cleared up. But I certainly respect Randy's input, enough where I'd like to give RMEF the benefit of the doubt. But a phone call to the decision makers is certainly on my list of things to do.

That staff is top shelf. Do call them. I haven't talked to them yet either, but I doubt they're sitting on their hands. Not everything is comms, and not everything is quiet advocacy. It takes all aspects to make a difference.

 

[brocksw]

Just released less than an hour ago.

RMEF’s Statement on Montana FWP Elk Hunt Changes

RMEF is in the process of reviewing and analyzing the proposed changes to Montana’s 2022 elk hunting season. We strongly believe the following principles should guide all plans and/or proposals related to elk management. RMEF supports: science–based wildlife management healthy elk populations...

www.rmef.org

 

[El Jason]

But a phone call to the decision makers is certainly on my list of things to do.

And probably should be the first avenue of approach.

 

[brocksw]

And probably should be the first avenue of approach.

I 've talked to a couple representatives at events in the last several months. It's not as if a HT thread was "plan A".

 

[BuzzH]

The bottom line on Montana elk mismanagement is not an rmef problem. The hunters and in particular those that vote need to catch a clue.

The hunters and citizens of Montana need to stand up for themselves, not expect the rmef, the fwp, or those they elect to save the day.

The cavalry ain't coming...

 

[El Jason]

I 've talked to a couple representatives at events in the last several months. It's not as if a HT thread was "plan A".

Were they unable to direct you to the person in charge of making public comment on this issue?

 

[El Jason]

The bottom line on Montana elk mismanagement is not an rmef problem. The hunters and in particular those that vote need to catch a clue.

The hunters and citizens of Montana need to stand up for themselves, not expect the rmef, the fwp, or those they elect to save the day.

The calvary ain't coming...

People get the government they vote for.

 

[brocksw]

Were they unable to direct you to the person in charge of making public comment on this issue?

2 said that there was no one at HQ to give an answer because their Gov relations person had moved employment. And that was also the reason they didn't comment or get involved when this legislation was first popping up.

The third guy gave me a long winded answer that didn't say much. He ended with tell me the same thing the first two guys said.

 

[El Jason]

Honestly, I wouldn’t fault RMEF a bit if they pretty much said what Buzz did.

 

[BuzzH]

The average Montana resident elk hunter seems fine with the way things are...if they didn't they would get serious about making changes.

I saw the hand writing on the wall a long time ago with wildlife management in Montana...many didn't believe me.

I'm sorry to say I told them so.

Hard to care much any longer.

 

[mtmuley]

Hard to care much any longer.

As evidenced on this forum there are a bunch of us that live here that still care. mtmuley

 

[Sytes]

There seems to be the assumption that when RMEF picks of the phone or has a meeting that the Governor, the Director, or the Commission is going to do what RMEF says. I can assure you that Governors, Senators, Reps and others sometimes don't listen to RMEF any more than they will listen to 25,000 pissed off resident hunters. I know that first hand, as I chaired the Board Committee that made those decisions. It's not like RMEF walks in the room and every politician hands over the paper and pen to let RMEF write the deal. It would be nice if that was the case, but it's not...
...To your quote above, the bigger issues isn't what MOGA did, but what RMEF did. When MOGA and WYOGA started their public campaign to try keep me off the RMEF Board in 2013, MOGA/WYOGA members said they would withhold donations from RMEF. RMEF laughed. I was voted to the Board for six years. And after that RMEF went about making sure no group would ever think they could hold RMEF hostage in that manner.

RMEF has had some folks on the Board who are outfitters and I served with some of them. They were good folks and good Board members. If RMEF makes a decision to be/not be involved in a topic, I would bet a large chunk of money that money from landowners and outfitters had nothing to do with that decision.

I suggest you call HQ and talk to the actual folks who make these decisions. I would bet what you get from them would be an answer completely within the policy guidelines RMEF uses in making any of these decisions. Those guidelines were adopted with a ton of consideration, a view on the long-term goals of the organization, and accountability to the mission of the organization. When I was there, every decision was considered and framed within those guidelines and most every published position had some who deemed it too soft, not enough, or some other term that made it obvious the claimant did not agree with the decision and/or how it was communicated.

I would suggest we work at solving the task at hand and let RMEF do their work in the manner they choose to do it.

I've held concerns about RMEF as it seems far too frequent, silence is the response to the ever increasing, over many years, growing public's concern regarding the various governing affairs in MT and elk mis-management. I've had the opportunity to speak with a few RMEF involved personnel and have a better understanding of the discussions and RMEF's methods towards some amazing success stories. Reading Randy's take quoted above is refreshing and re-enforces what I've learned during those discussions

Some politically entrenched HT members want to claim this is a sudden issue due to current politics. No, it's not. This is a reaction towards past politics. It's an extreme pendulum swing - that sucks and inspired more-so by the divisive, entrenched red vs blue WE, as voters must claim responsibility as the problem.

I value my $ sent to RMEF. I enjoy the banquets (more $) and tinker with the raffles as I do with Oak's RMBS raffles (more $) even though I've not placed for a single sheep tag. It's the conservation and most valued in my book, RMEF's ever growing reach to increase public land access, thus improving vital habitat / conservation for elk, etc.

There are suit and tie actions and there's the pitchfork desires from people. I personally wish and shared this with the RMEF personnel - my desire for more RMEF member transparency regarding RMEF's position within the backroom discussions... however, that diminishes the gains made by maintaining the serious dialogue w/o creating public posters for the pitchfork mentality.

Meaningless internet forum two coppers worth as an RMEF member.