Bambistew
Well-known member
RMEF isn't any bettet than BGF or SFW... jump on the bandwagon for the glory ride.
USFWS to delist in Lower 48
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
RMEF isn't any bettet than BGF or SFW... jump on the bandwagon for the glory ride.
Topgun 30-06
Active member
***Looks like with that statement you're trying to start a war on here, LOL!
Bambistew
Well-known member
No war intended... just wanted to make sure people realize that the RMEF sat on the sidelines for years, even after continued prodding by the hunting community to do something. Only been the last few that they actually took a stance.
MThuntr
Well-known member
Big Fin is currently owning some poor sap on the USFWS facebook page.
Bambi is correct in that when the reintroductions were proposed in 1995, RMEF made the decision to let the states and the USFWS sort out their own deals, and not weigh in one way or the other. That did not seem like too controversial of a position at the time, given the states were accepting the deal they had worked out with the USFWS. And given that RMEF is a non-profit, they cannot force the states or Feds to do anything they are not inclined to do.
By 2000, delisting criteria had been met and state plans were being developed. Those plans were submitted for approval in 2003, mostly accepted by the USFWS, and the delisting process began. It looked like the plan was going to be followed as agreed to by the states and the Feds.
Then, enter the cash cow of litigation. It quickly became apparent that the deal was going to be derailed/delayed by profit-driven litigation. This changed the landscape for the discussion and required RMEF to reassess what their position was and how it could/should move forward.
In 2005, once the court cases continued to delay the process, RMEF got more actively involved. In doing so, it created dissension among some RMEF staff and supporters, and gave their critics a big target to go after. As with any issue, some will be upset, whether you stay with the original path, or chart a new path.
By 2006, RMEF was asking to be an intervener in the court cases, working with politicians to find solutions to solve the impasse, and most importantly, advocating for the state management control that was promised the states in the original agreement. A far more active role than what they had taken in the prior years, and given the situation, the right thing to do for a group focused on ensuring a future for elk, other wildlife, and their habitat.
Since then, RMEF has been hammered by a lot of the environmental groups as being rabid anti-wolf zealots, because RMEF has one expectation - state control of wolves. Some of these attacks come from former RMEF board and staff who think it was a big mistake for RMEF to engage in the wolf debate. Evidently, asking promises to be kept offend some people.
I am very glad RMEF did get engaged, and looking in the mirror and trying to see what options they had at the time, I am sure they wish they had made more noise to remind everyone the expectation that the states be provided the management control that was promised to them. As much as non-profits try to stay out of politics, you cannot stand on the sidelines forever, hoping for the system to work itself out, all the while the cause you have as your mission is being impacted negatively.
It is hard to say how much influence any group can have on public process, but it cannot hurt. The politics of wolves is so volatile, you cannot move an inch one way or the other without someone being mad. RMEF takes great risks, everytime they do/say anything related to wolves. But, one thing that has become apparent since RMEF has engaged in the effort to deliver state control - members and hunters appreciate the effort RMEF is making in that direction. Another thing equally apparent - In making the case for state control, RMEF has become the biggest target for the detractors who want to reneg on the deal made with the states. Such is life when you provide leadership.
As long as I am on the RMEF board, my vote and my advocacy will be habitat and access, and when the issue of wildlife management is the topic, I will continue to advocate for one simple idea - state control of wildlife, whether it be wolves, or hopefully soon, state control of grizzly bears.
Yeah, school is in session. I had always hoped Mr. Huard would engage in a debate on this topic, but could never lure him to do so, or when done, he would resort to name calling, hyperbole, and deflection of facts. Even invited him to sign up over here.
Evidently he feels safe debating on Facebook. Mr. Huard posts on every newspaper or blog site that ever has a topic on wolves. I normally have better things to do with my time, but this is a special opportunity to be relished, so I will humor him.
I notice his small band of merry followers have stood down after providing their highly scientific comments.
Wow, appears I am making progress over on FB. Mr. Huard just posted this comment, one I think we can agree on, "Should be country clubber... Obama is a clueless urban President. His idea of the outdoors is playing a round of golf."
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Let the Sarah McLachlan commercials begin!
Thanks for your constructive and fact based debate Randy! I take notice when any one is trying to make their point and they resort to name calling. It usually means they do not have any facts to support their point and only calling names is all they have left.
Taking the high ride may not offer the dramatics, but when your opponent takes the low road it really shows them to be the crackpot they really are. Any objective reader can see through the "puffery".
Taking the high ride may not offer the dramatics, but when your opponent takes the low road it really shows them to be the crackpot they really are. Any objective reader can see through the "puffery".
shoots-straight
Well-known member
That time you outdid yourself.I'm just now reading the whole damn thing.It is entertaining.
Man, I am trying to get some work done this morning, but these guys serve them up like the homerun contest at the MLB All-star game. The entertainment factor is very good, at least from my chair.
I wonder if those guys have ever read any of the threads here about the many spats I have had SFW, BGF, and the leaders of those groups. Obviously not.
I wonder if those guys have ever read any of the threads here about the many spats I have had SFW, BGF, and the leaders of those groups. Obviously not.
fowladdict
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,578
Link to fb? I cant find it.
MThuntr
Well-known member
fowladdict
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,578
Thanks!
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Remember what arguing on the internet is like? Doubly so with those folks.
Don't get too muddy Randy. There's no good payoff at the end.
I believe there's educational payoffs. People that view those threads that haven't made their minds up can get educated. It's no different that what we do everyday of the session.
To what extent people are being reached might be debated.
It is good clean fun. Anything factual and positive from our side can't loose.
ida homer
Well-known member
Good work Randy, this William dude is the worst debater I have ever seen, regardless of his position on the issue.
jryoung
Well-known member
Proposed ruling now open for comment, please make your voice heard.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073-0001
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073-0001
Bambistew
Well-known member
Try this link to the comments page. Took me a few minutes to find the right page.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073-0001
Similar threads
