In sitting down and thinking about all of this. I went and looked over the website again. The whole point of the RMEF is to offset the incredible loss of habitat in the West. There are some figures on their that are pretty staggering. How would it help anything for the RMEF to lose this focus? The website does a much better job of saying what I attempted to say in my last post, but did a piss poor job. Why stop at wolves? What about bears? They kill a crap-pile of elk too, new born mostly, but they still have an impact, not near that of wolves, imho, but where does it end.
Members are members because they want to be, because above all, habitat is ultimately necessary for elk, once gone, it is gone forever. Populations of deer, elk, wolves, can go up and down, but without habitat, they can only go down.

I shouldn't make it my job to defend the RMEF, that is a mistake. Four guys in Troy Montana started down this path and haven't strayed from the original goal of protecting habitat. Anything else will just clutter the situation. Maybe calling it the ELK foundation was a mistake, because by protecting habitat they are protecting much more than elk, and by allowing public use of lands bought by the RMEF they are protecting our hunting heritage.
I hope someday you decide to join. And all the people you can convince as well. Just you talking about it is good, it shows concern either way. I take hope in that because many hunters/sportsmen just take and take and take and never put back, whether its elk, deer, ducks, pheasants, or even fish. The RMEF is just one little way I can put back.