Caribou Gear

UPOM suing FWP over elk regulations

Straight arrow. U seem like u really cared. I apologize for offending u. Obviously our experience and expectations were different. That's why I say. They did some good to great things but in my experience and opinion, we the public should have better. No doubt u did what was right in your time. Maybe u should get more involved. Iam telling u are experience was very different.
 
Straight Arrow said:
'Don't know specifically what metrics or criteria you considered, but I do know that RMEF has been instrumental in enhancing and acquiring large pieces of public land elk and other wildlife habitat in Montana and elsewhere. Examples are readily found, but most significant have been in the Paradise Valley near Gardiner, in the Madison Range up Taylors Fork and elsewhere, in the Pintlars west of Anaconda, and many other locales. RMEF's role in acquiring many lands has prevented certain adverse impacts from private development. The history is there if you care to "dig" deeply into it.
"Influenced self opinion", although a vague and hopefully not derogatory comment about me, may be accurate as I have been a member of RMEF since the 1980's, close to the inception of that organization. I volunteered and served on the RMEF Gallatin Chapter for many years and served as chair for several years. As unpaid volunteers we raised literally millions of dollars for the projects aforementioned, as well as many others. I am surprised that RMEF did not make your top 5, but I guess it does depend on what you were seeking since you chose the criteria. Regardless of your deep dig and your personal opinion of the value of RMEF, I firmly stand behind the opinion previously expressed on this thread, "IMO RMEF is the best bang for your donated buck when it comes to enhancing and acquiring habitat for elk and other wildlife."
Those RMEF volunteers and I have earned the right to be proud of RMEF and to express an opinion based on decades of efforts ... not merely one "influenced self opinion" deep dig.
Click to expand...
Historically it may have been different but a simple way to determine the effectiveness of a charity is by their "program percentage". The program percentage is the raw % of the money raised that goes directly to the cause. The higher the percentage, the more of your dollar donated goes to what you actually want it to go to. Anything above 85% is usually considered pretty good and the best are in the 90%-95% range. RMEF was under 85%. This is due to their high cost to raise money and because they tend to pay their paid position members quite well . The high cost to raise money is because they need to do banquets and raffles to get people to donate. Think about an organization like PETA - people just donate out of passion whereas hunters are typically NOT donating to RMEF out of pure passion - they want to win something in return.

Just like Shed God, I'm not saying that RMEF is bad - they do some great things. I get an annual membership myself still. I just wish the dollar that got donated was able to be used better.
 
Last edited:
seeth07 said:
Historically it may have been different but a simple way to determine the effectiveness of a charity is by their "program percentage". The program percentage is the raw % of the money raised that goes directly to the cause. The higher the percentage, the more of your dollar donated goes to what you actually want it to go to. Anything above 85% is usually considered pretty good and the best are in the 90%-95% range. RMEF was under 85%. This is due to their high cost to raise money and because they tend to pay their paid position members quite well . The high cost to raise money is because they need to do banquets and raffles to get people to donate. Think about an organization like PETA - people just donate out of passion whereas hunters are typically donating to RMEF out of passion.

Just like Shed God, I'm not saying that RMEF is bad - they do some great things. I get an annual membership myself still. I just wish the dollar that got donated was able to be used better.
Click to expand...
How far under 85%??
 
Straight Arrow said:
'Don't know specifically what metrics or criteria you considered, but I do know that RMEF has been instrumental in enhancing and acquiring large pieces of public land elk and other wildlife habitat in Montana and elsewhere. Examples are readily found, but most significant have been in the Paradise Valley near Gardiner, in the Madison Range up Taylors Fork and elsewhere, in the Pintlars west of Anaconda, and many other locales. RMEF's role in acquiring many lands has prevented certain adverse impacts from private development. The history is there if you care to "dig" deeply into it.
"Influenced self opinion", although a vague and hopefully not derogatory comment about me, may be accurate as I have been a member of RMEF since the 1980's, close to the inception of that organization. I volunteered and served on the RMEF Gallatin Chapter for many years and served as chair for several years. As unpaid volunteers we raised literally millions of dollars for the projects aforementioned, as well as many others. I am surprised that RMEF did not make your top 5, but I guess it does depend on what you were seeking since you chose the criteria. Regardless of your deep dig and your personal opinion of the value of RMEF, I firmly stand behind the opinion previously expressed on this thread, "IMO RMEF is the best bang for your donated buck when it comes to enhancing and acquiring habitat for elk and other wildlife."
Those RMEF volunteers and I have earned the right to be proud of RMEF and to express an opinion based on decades of successful efforts ... not merely one "influenced self opinion" deep dig.
Click to expand...
I think what you’re seeing is some chapters are very active and some, like my two closest chapters are basically just useless drinking clubs that hold a banquet every year to give money back to HQ. I’m never seen a single habitat project done by them, never see them show up to meetings, never see them provide comments on elk seasons, don’t see them show up for state volunteer projects, etc. They could do a ton of work in my area on trail projects, habitat work, etc but they dont
 
When valuing the effectiveness of a nonprofit, the numerical metric such as the 85 vs 79 comparison is an indicator, but it is much more complex than that. In the case of RMEF over the decades it has been noted that highly professional and productive employees have moved on due to the austere nature of the nonprofit's budget, which faces the dilemma of employee retention versus escalation of compensation. To their credit, RMEF has been able to recruit and motivate replacement professionals continuously to keep producing great results on behalf of elk and other wildlife ... as well as hunting.
Certainly my bias is obvious, but when the successful projects through the decades are recounted and shown to still be of increasing value, RMEF stands tall as an organization worth support of wildlife advocates, hunters, and those who value public lands.
 
seeth07 said:
79
Click to expand...
Hmm. What years were you analyzing?

When I was on the Board and chaired the Finance Committee, Charity Navigator, the service that ranks large non-profits, came up with 88-90% every year for the percentage of funds that went to program expenses.

I just went to their financial statements and it seems they are staying very close to that 90% number.

I just went to Charity Navigator and looked up their Accounting and Transparency score. It is 96 out of 100 for the last year on file.
 
Big Fin said:
Hmm. What years were you analyzing?

When I was on the Board and chaired the Finance Committee, Charity Navigator, the service that ranks large non-profits, came up with 88-90% every year for the percentage of funds that went to program expenses.

I just went to their financial statements and it seems they are staying very close to that 90% number.

I just went to Charity Navigator and looked up their Accounting and Transparency score. It is 96 out of 100 for the last year on file.
Click to expand...
I used Charity Watch, I did just go to Charity Navigator and the 96% you mention is what their "score is" for that metric. It is the "program percentage" of dollars spent for the cause.

Mind sharing those financial statements?
 
Analyze with whatever metrics you want but RMEF has had a hand with most of the recent land acquisitions in Montana. I think @Straight Arrow statement stands if we are talking about access via the land acquisition route which is my preferred route. For me, they do enough to get my money. If not the best for that than who else?
 
rogerthat said:
Analyze with whatever metrics you want but RMEF has had a hand with most of the recent land acquisitions in Montana. I think @Straight Arrow statement stands if we are talking about access via the land acquisition route which is my preferred route. For me, they do enough to get my money. If not the best for that than who else?
Click to expand...
Going to open up a can of worms but as far as habitat and preserving land for wildlife, look at APR. Your donated dollar goes a long ways there. There are also A LOT of small local organizations with almost ALL volunteers that do great work - i.e. no to little overhead.
 
seeth07 said:
Going to open up a can of worms but as far as habitat and preserving land for wildlife, look at APR. Your donated dollar goes a long ways there. There are also A LOT of small local organizations with almost ALL volunteers that do great work - i.e. no to little overhead.
Click to expand...
Apr doesn’t work to get the land under fed management. Nor do the lands provide the same level of accessibility. They will never get a dollar from me for their preserve. The Apr rug pull is going to be pretty epic.
 
Not sure how a thread abut UPOM suing Montana and getting their asses kicked in court ended up being a bitch session about conservation groups.

If folks want to start a thread on conservation groups and their accomplishments, start one. Happy to jump in and advocate for all the groups who do good, and there are many.

Let's get this thread back to the original topic, that being an anti-conservation group suing a wildlife agency and getting their ass handed to them.
 
Any time UPOM gets what's coming to them, I'm a happy camper.

They are a half a friend to the outfitting lobby, but they couldn't care less about the run of the mill resident deer and elk hunter. Oh wait, to be fair, they do at times want help culling does or cow elk from their lands

Just speaking for myself, I could in the right circumstance shoot a cow elk, if the hunt was a hunt, not a take you out to where they are, and just shoot one. That is pretty hypothetical, I've never done it, and spend no effort trying to make it happen.

I will never shoot a doe, where I am not welcome to hunt bucks, as well.
 
:)

I guess if you dont get your way in court - you can always add laws to make sure it works next time you want to challenge it.

"except that the department may develop a rule that describes variable license structures for antlerless elk based on management goals."

@Elky Welky if that law/language exists - could judge todd rule the same way?
 
Forkyfinder said:
:)

I guess if you dont get your way in court - you can always add laws to make sure it works next time you want to challenge it.

"except that the department may develop a rule that describes variable license structures for antlerless elk based on management goals."

@Elky Welky if that law/language exists - could judge todd rule the same way?
Click to expand...
Ok Forky explain the bad parts of the bill so I can understand. You are never going to force access to private.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

runningmt
Shoulda seen this coming
Replies
2
Views
2K
BrokenChicken
BrokenChicken
Ben Lamb
Montana FWP makes seismic shift in elk permits
54 55 56
Replies
1K
Views
186K
antlerradar
antlerradar

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
119,841
Messages
2,240,362
Members
39,025
Latest member
jesster307

Share this page

Back
Top