I will start getting on the regional director here as well. As a new committee member I don't have the feel yet as to how such a petition would go over with the other committee members. I know most of the attendees would sign it in a heartbeat. But population control in any form won't happen until de-listing, that is where political pressure could come in. Money won't do a dang thing right now, unless it is the form of lobbyists like that anti-wolf outfit out of Idaho, but then you are getting into political realms along the lines of Mr. Abramhoff, that nobody wants to talk about.
I would like an insert in every issue of Bugle, a poll so to speak. Asking every paying member what they would like to see the RMEF do regarding wolves. I would put every opinion on there from "Donate part of my money to a pro-wolf group", to "Do nothing", to"Pay bounties toRMEF members who bring wolf tails to the banquet", just to make sure that you get every varying opinion out there. I bet it would be shocking how many people, especially members who live east of the Mississippi(and there are a lot of them), who don't understand the effects of wolves on elk, and would be more pro-wolf than you think, and they will pull their membership in a hurry too, if the RMEF looks too extreme the other way. I want to think you are right, that membership would increase a bunch if they took up a hardcore stance against wolves. How do we ever know without asking current membership.

Is your local chapter president considering the stance about how the RMEF supporting de-listing as neutral? Maybe that is where you and I aren't connecting here. I consider that to be a pretty big deal as being anti-wolf and not really neutral. When you mention something like that to some of these bunny hugging groups, they pretty much pitch a fit, they don't want state control.