wtf rmef

[katqanna]

I am not a RMEF member, nor a MWF member any longer, I joined BHA and have memberships in a couple of other conservation organizations, so I dont have any skin in this particular organization discussion.

But, I would like to interject some general points.

I know many sportsmen conservationists in Montana that hold memberships/support a number of conservation groups, some of them species specific, like Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, etc. There is a lot of crossover in sporting memberships. When I was a MWF member, I do remember that there were a number of their board that were or had been, RMEF members as well.

I also know that being a landowner is not exclusive to RMEF. Numerous of the MWF members and other conservation sportsmens organizations are also landowners, some farmers and ranchers. One of the more prominent members in this legislative discussion owns over 4000 acres (I looked it up on Montana Cadastral yesterday). So the question then becomes, how can these conservation sportsmens organizations have an "anti-landowner agenda" when a number of them are landowners, farmers, ranchers themselves? No one organization can claim to represent all Montana landowners positions, not even UPOM.

Another point, If you look at the two legislative hearings, you will see at the first senate hearing that there were individuals that opposed SB 245, that are heads of other sporting groups, but at that time they spoke for themselves, not as representatives of their sporting organizations. As more awareness and discussion continued on the bill, you later see some of those men speak for their organizations at the House hearing. Others still spoke for themselves. Emails have been circulating from a number of sportsmen that are not on organization letterhead, nor do they have any organization titles attached. Individuals, even if they hold a position with an organization, have every right to participate in the public process.

Finally, as to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, the 7 core principles are:
1. Wildlife resources are a public trust.
2. Markets for game are eliminated.
3. Allocation of wildlife is by law.
4. Wildlife can be killed only for a legitimate purpose.
5. Wildlife is considered an international resource.
6. Science is the proper tool to discharge
wildlife policy.
7. Democracy of hunting is standard.

Nothing in those 7 principles advocates state-based management, but rather a larger ideal that is more inclusive, rejects privatization and exploitation, endorsing "public" and "democracy" - that of the people at large. While AFWA adopted these principles as their basis, each state manages differently. I can tell you, though Texas Parks & Wildlife is an AFWA member, the privatized Texas Model is vastly different than the North American Model. So while Allen writes, "State-based management lies at the heart of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The contention by groups that this bill somehow undermines the North American Model is simply more political posturing," the majority of Montanan sportsmen I have heard from over the years do not want a privatized Texas state based model, but rather the science based public model.

Care needs to be taken not to replace the European landowning aristocrats with American/Montanan landowners, dismissing privatizations concerns of our public wildlife held by the public. These concerns should always have a place in the discussion, because this is the "heart" of the North American Model.

 

[Big Fin]

I would like to hear Fin's take on it all.

He has a stake in the RMEF and owns this joint.

Well, nothing I could add will change some of the opinions expressed here, so I've just let the thread run its course. I closed the prior SB245 thread, as I was afraid it was going to result in a piling on of Joe Perry and possibly MWF. Nothing good would have come of that. Closing this thread under the same premise would have looked like "protecting the home team," so it will stay as an open thread.

Oak is right, when you look at this bill on the surface. It is not much of a bill. FWP did a good job of getting it very watered down from what it was originally. If the amendments had been attached, nobody would have supported it.

A lot goes on behind the scenes on these bills when the legislature is in session, causing a lot of interconnected pieces that are not apparent on the surface. Here is some background on this bill.

This bill draft was a bad bill. FWP got it watered down to a very high degree, to where most feel it really does nothing. The gut response is, "If it does nothing, why not kill it?" I agree with that sentiment and I wish it was that easy.

The most important thing about this bill that has not been mentioned is the FWP supported the bill. All the other supporters have been listed to make it seem like some crazy collaboration. Whoever posted the supporters ought to go back and point out that FWP also supported the bill. And here is where the interconnected issues come into play.

By supporting the bill, FWP was granted a much easier path for the fee increase bill, HB 140. HB 140 was the most important wildlife related bill that passed this year. FWP needed support on the fee increase effort. Support for that effort included supporting SB 245 in its watered-down state. Many western states have tried to pass resident fee increases the last couple years and they all got tossed to the scrap pile. Montana succeeded in getting it passed, via HB 140.

End result, we get the important part of HB 140 passed. We have to take as medicine, SB245. I think everyone wishes the SB245 would have never been introduced and that we did not have to see the ruckus that accompanied that bill.

Not having to work through these ridiculous political tangles would be great. But, that is the dream world, not the reality of legislative politics. Elections have consequences. having to accept SB245 to get a resident fee increase is one of those consequences. When voters punch the tab that says "R" or "D" without any consideration of what that will cause when the legislature is in session, this is the carnage you have to work with. Until voters start sending people to Helena who have some priority of hunting/fishing/access, rather than seeing FWP as nothing more than a battering chip, expect more of this kind of junk, not less.

Hopefully that provides some background of this bill that makes it a lot more gray than the black and white some like to paint it as. We got a resident fee increase. If it means we deal with SB 245, in its current state, as part of that process, I personally think we came out pretty good.

That is one issue. The other issue is how the approach of this bill has pitted some groups against each other and the consequences of how those groups have publicly communicated.

I have over 100 emails and PMs about the topic since yesterday morning. I've fielded over 20 phone calls. I read and listen. Nothing I say or write is going to change how some feel about the fallout of one side claiming the other is "not a mainstream hunting group;" rebutted by the other side writing a reply that has started this thread.

Continue to discuss as you feel is appropriate.

Again, Oak is on target about SB 245. If not for its connection to helping smooth the legislative path for a much needed resident fee increase, it is doubtful anybody would have even engaged on a bill such as this.

For me, this has been a winter of fighting the public land transfer issue. And given what Congress has done this week with their new fringe committee to facilitate the transfer to the states and the new amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act that would authorize transfer of 60 million acres, this is the last you will hear of me caring about, talking about, of wasting any more time on the issue of SB245.

I will continue to field the phone calls, the emails, the PMs, and whatever else people want to do to communicate their thoughts on this. Comes with the position I have and the platforms I own. I am thankful to be in the position, even when there are "those days." I can only hope that the same people who feel so strongly about this dust up will employ the same concern and effort when Congress comes to steal our public lands.

One thing for certain. The battle to protect our public lands from being sold and transferred will require the effort of all the groups involved in the dust up on SB245. This bill is nothing but a pimple on the ass of progress.

I'm moving on. Thanks for all who have voiced their concern here, on the phone, and via email.

 

[RobG]

Here is the reply I got from Holyoak.

I will be out of the office until Monday, May 3 and will return your inquiries at that time. Thanks for supporting the RMEF!

And I have a call with Jesus in 35 minutes. I can't make this stuff up.


[edit - thanks for that background info Randy, sorry that you have to deal with all this]

 

[Sytes]

Thanks, Randy. Tough gig - glad you have the skin and the willingness to take on this charge.

The fight over our public lands is pretty EPIC in the grand scheme of things. Domestic wise - it is a game changer for political positioning, both for the "representatives" and the voters. This one issue is one that will NEVER be able to reverse once it lands in the hands of private parties. That has to be the most frightening aspect... It is not an, "Oops, sorry we flubbed up! - new amendment..." This is, once done it can not be undone.

Anyhow, back the content of defining "Pseudo" - whatever.

 

[Western_Hunter]

I love how people default to "do you know how much Allen made this past year?" Give me a break! Who cares, and for all that matters maybe he should be making more than that for what he and his organization has done for elk. People saying "I won't support RMEF". Well go support PETA then, because I can tell you right now RMEF has done more for elk herds in the US than anyone else. I don't care if its private or public, elk are where they are and in the end means stronger/healthier elk herds. Rant over.

 

[tjones]

Thanks Randy.

 

[hank4elk]

Thanks Randy!
As a person who has been deeply involved in public lands issues and dealing with the gubberment and what it takes to sort thru the political quagmire too,my hats off to you! I had to step way back to Catron county to get away,and it's followed me here too. Again thanks. HJW

 

[Straight Arrow]

RMEF has done more for elk herds in the US than anyone else.

So true, with a clearly documented history to show it. For the first couple of decades since its inception, RMEF maintained a strict focus on the mission of acquiring and enhancing habitat for elk and other wildlife, remaining apolitical and pretty much immune to political and social issues beginning to elevate regarding wildlife and hunting. However, those issues have grown to be so important with respect to the welfare of elk and other wildlife and hunting that RMEF was forced to begin to develop positions on controversial and contentious issues. Whether you agree with the RMEF position and rhetoric on any given issue, I submit to you that the RMEF position is grounded in the base philosophy of enhancing the welfare of elk. With the advent the internet, widely viewed social media, and other networks, your point of view may be influenced differently, but try to relate the position of RMEF to the mission and perhaps it will be more acceptable ... even if not agreeable.

 

[MNElkNut]

I don't really have any skin in the game on this one, but I loved this quote, "This bill is nothing but a pimple on the ass of progress.".

I, and everyone, should be much more worried about the public land transfer issue. My hope is that people drop all efforts on this and other minor issues and focus all of their energies on the mastodon of mistakes that is barreling down the road at us.

 

[RobG]

I love how people default to "do you know how much Allen made this past year?" Give me a break! Who cares, and for all that matters maybe he should be making more than that for what he and his organization has done for elk. People saying "I won't support RMEF". Well go support PETA then, because I can tell you right now RMEF has done more for elk herds in the US than anyone else. I don't care if its private or public, elk are where they are and in the end means stronger/healthier elk herds. Rant over.

It isn't that germane, but the point about salary was that at that level we should expect him to conduct himself as a professional. Yes, RMEF has helped a lot of elk; the question is whether this kind of "outreach" helps or hurts that end goal. I think the latter, and if I just shut up because they are better than peta it will just add to the things that are keeping me up at night. With over 100 comments I am glad I am not the only one who thinks that way.

have fun y'all... this might be my last evening out for a while.

 

[James Riley]

My three centavos:

The power of persuasion only works it's wonders on a mind not yet made up. When your mind is made up but you need more minds in your camp, you have to remember that open minds may be observing you, even as you engage the opposition or preach to the choir.

When directly trying to persuade a mind to your side, you try your best not to alienate, obviously. And you bring your best game.

When preaching to the choir you might want to motivate, rally the troops, and boil the blood but you should always remember who might be watching.

When engaging the opposition you might be sorely compelled to “give as good as you get” and lower yourself to what you perceive as “their level.” But again, you should always remember who might be watching.

In the end then, it would seem to me that if you choose to engage anyone, anywhere, at any time, when there is even the remotest possibility that your words or actions might get out, you should be on high ground with an articulate, moving, heart-felt, logical persuasion.

Not all of us can do that. I know I can't. But we should search for men and women who can. And I don't mean milk-toast, gray, “middle-ground” moderation. That in itself is not very persuasive or compelling. Passion is a good thing but it comes better in a package of wisdom; not gravitas but true wisdom. We know it when we see it.

And, as humans, no one is perfect. And, as humans, we like to point that out.

 

[roadhunter]

Hopefully Buzz is reading ^^^.