RMEF stance on fed land transfer

[RockyDog]

I am curious to know if RMEF has taken a public stance on the land transfer movement. Couldn't really find a stance advertised anywhere on their website or posted on their Facebook page. Does anyone know where RMEF stands on this and what if any action they have taken?

 

[Randy11]

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/Pr...pposesSaleorTransferofFederalPublicLands.aspx

So much of their work has been acquiring and opening up access, it's pretty obvious they're against it. It would be nice if they were more vocal about it.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Imho
A vocal stance on public lands will do a lot more for elk hunters than buying chunks of land.

 

[ida homer]

Imho
A vocal stance on public lands will do a lot more for elk hunters than buying chunks of land.

Agreed. If these larger groups would all start putting out some more aggressive statements I think it would do wonders.

 

[Big Fin]

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/Pr...pposesSaleorTransferofFederalPublicLands.aspx

So much of their work has been acquiring and opening up access, it's pretty obvious they're against it. It would be nice if they were more vocal about it.

I'd be interested in ideas as to how RMEF could be "more vocal."

I suspect my personal advocacy and my daily investment of hours on the inside of this issue may cause me to have a different perspective of RMEF's engagement than what others looking from the outside may perceive. In addition to involvement due to my personal platforms, it seems my role as a RMEF Board Member includes a few engagements each week on behalf of RMEF's position against land transfer.

I can assure that a lot of things are being done behind the scenes to put pressure on the screwballs pushing this idea. I see RMEF as the loudest advocate against the issue among the "species specific" groups.

All that said, I'm interested in hearing any ideas that others think would be helpful.

 

[Oneye]

Randy, I believe RMEF is doing a good job on this issue. It is also great that they actually released a press release against it. They have been the most vocal of any about it that are species specific as you said. I contacted the Mule Deer Foundation a few days ago and got the response that they are also against the transfer of public lands to the state. That actually suprised me considering SFW has never had the balls to say they are against it. Most groups have came out against it in one way or another. The one group that needs to come out against it is the NRA, and that would be a great benefit to all of us.

 

[RobG]

I remember reading about the subject in Bugle and it was clear they viewed it as a threat, but it wasn't a feature article - probably it was in the President's Message. I think distilling some of the stuff in Fin's podcast into a full on article would help educate the masses.

 

[Randy11]

I'd be interested in ideas as to how RMEF could be "more vocal."

Like Rockydog said, they have nothing on their Facebook about in 2016, and that's with multiple posts a day. Huge audience there they could be getting the word out to. They're using that platform to discuss other non-elk specific topics on a regular basis.

 

[idcuda]

I think they're doing a good job, as well, but something more prominent on the website would be a start. The Public Access page should have some information (http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/PublicAccess.aspx). Maybe in bold, with sparkling lights and fireballs, to make sure we see it.

I agree with many that this is the biggest issue facing western elk hunters (sportsmen), so it should have more space devoted to it than do easements and land exchanges. Knowledge is power. This forum, alone, has provided me more information than I expected.

 

[Big Fin]

I'll send a thread link to the Communications group.

 

[Sawtooth]

I would love to see the RMEF and other groups like BHA come together with outdoor recreation businesses to make a couple of 30 second TV commercials regarding the land transfer issue. Ted Cruz's two week IdahoTV blitz got his stance on the issue out to the public, even though he really didn't say anything in depth on the subject. If these groups could give the "sound bite" public a few more of the facts in a short TV ad, I think many more of them would realize how stupid this land transfer idea really is. Putting information on your web page or facebook page is a great start, but we need to educate the non-hunting public on how land transfer is going to affect their lives. Here in Idaho, I can't think of too many people that don't spend at least a few weeks each year recreating on public land. Even a billboard with a picture of an empty campground with no trespassing signs and the words saying "So now what are you going to do this weekend?" Or "Still think Selling off our Public Lands is a good idea? Happy Labor Day! would get the non-hunting public thinking.

 

[Brittany Chukarman]

Check out the reprint of the 1996 Jack Ward Thomas article in the last Bugle.

 

[shoots-straight]

I was with Randy, and David Allen, along with 500 fellow sportman from around Montana in the last legislative session, at a rally in Helena to show legislators that we wanted public lands left in public hands.

I feel that after that rally Randy has done a great job of keeping the fire burning. RMEF on the other hand needs to heat things up a notch. Without public lands, to recreate on, to provide elk populations, as well as other wildlife, there's little reason to continue to promote more money for "Elk Country". We know, all to well how elk are treated on private lands in Montana.

 

[quarterhorse]

Educating hunters through Bugle and RMEF's website would be a good start. I'm shocked at how many "western sportsman" I speak to who are unaware or uninformed. Reaching non hunting, but outdoor recreationists, through some TV commercials would be good too. Eastern hunters have a dog in this fight too if they dream of a DIY western hunt someday. It's their land too.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I'll send a thread link to the Communications group.

I'd like to see specific points that illustrate how the pro-transfer crowd is not accounting for the true costs of land management if federal land is transferred to the states.

For example, the costs of wild land fire fighting, road maintenance, the necessity of raising grazing fees, mining leases etc. in order for the states to make the land pay for it's maintenance.

When people realize that either their state taxes go up, or land stewardship is not maintained, or the cost of using the land becomes much more expensive, or the land will be disposed of, I think they may start to take notice.


The reality of this issue is that many hunters consider themselves conservative in political affiliation. We don't like big government, we don't like Washington DC and we don't like most of President Obama's policies. This causes us to be immediately sympathetic to anyone who is from the same political party we identify with who claims to be conservative, against big government, etc.. It also allows us to be manipulated into supporting something that undermines the very things we hold dear in our public lands.

There are always going to be those few ideological hardliners who will just have to be ignored and worked around, but the average guy who begins to make the connection that he stands to gain nothing and stands to lose a lot of access and it's going to cost him more to accomplish that loss, will become an ally in the end.

On the side of the pro-transfer movement I hear vague promises, incomplete presentation of facts that seems to support their position and ad hominem attacks against the perceived bad big government all wrapped up in an emotionally charged message intended to garner support from a population largely ignorant of the facts of this issue.

The facts on this issue support our side. Let's present them clearly, honestly, with emotions motivated by the passion we feel for what public lands access means to us without relying on the same kind of ad hominem attacks that is used by the other side. To be sure there are times to call a spade a spade but it is far better to let the guy who realizes he's been played for a fool by the people he trusted to protect his interest, call those people what they really are.

 

[grizzly_]

Is the RMEF pro-public-land position bring aggressively trumpeted at banquets? Our local banquet is in a few weeks so I'm not sure yet, but I nice piece of table literature or a well-made infotainment video shown at each banquet would reach a lot of people.

How about one of their great video emails showing some of the actual facts of the land grab and how it hurts hunting?

 

[MT_BWHTR]

One organization that a lot of people don't really think of off-hand is the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. Not only are they VERY engaged in this political spiderweb, but they are backed by several other organizations so they have a much stronger voice. When you have the membership base of the NWTF, DU, BHA, etc, it has much greater pull.

 

[NoWiser]

I think RMEF could use social media more effectively to educate people on this issue. Everyday I get pictures of elk from them, and that's great, but I'd like to see some posts on the public land "transfer." I think many who follow RMEF on Facebook are not even members. It's a chance to spread the message to many people who might not otherwise get it.

 

[Nameless Range]

I was with Randy, and David Allen, along with 500 fellow sportman from around Montana in the last legislative session, at a rally in Helena to show legislators that we wanted public lands left in public hands.

I was there too, and the RMEF made a heck of a statement against the transfer that day. I very much appreciate the RMEF being against the transfer.. Even just being able to point to them and say, "Hey, the Elk Foundation thinks this is a bad idea", is a powerful argument for those who may have not dug into the details.

I'm sure as Fin said, there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes. But it is also worth noting that as Randy11 pointed out, their Facebook has been dormant on the issue. I've said it before but I think it is a modern fact that through an organization's social media accounts, that org has its greatest potential of reaching the most eyes/ears. It's how large portions of communications take place nowadays. It is how ideas and positions spread like wildfire.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

I think part of the dynamic, is the average hunter most likely doesn't even understand the threat. I think we take for granted that the majority of the hunter are as informed as those on this site. It is probably even more confusing now, because whether you like it or not, to most hunters east of the Mississippi hunting rights = gun rights, and their guns rights politicians are saying transfer.

That isn't to say that these guys don't dream about making a couple of trips out west in their life, probably to hunt elk. If they understood things clearly, would be willing to take up the fight. That is where I believe the Team Elk show and Social Media would be a good route to reach these folks to try and get them involved.