Again, blaming the Elk Foundation is like blaming the flies for garbage piling up at the dump. Why don't you start your own foundation, RMAWF, the Rocky Mountain Anti-Wolf Foundation. I will be your first sponsor member. Or tell me another organization that has any clout at all that is dedicated to eradicating the wolf from the land, so I can join myself.

There are several places to put your money and I'm sure you can find some online. Try the Idaho Anti-wolf Coalition. With all the problems with the wolves and our new found re-knowledge, wouldn't it be nice if a huge organization like RMEF would contribute towards controlling the wolf population? They are suppossed to be improving the elk population and you would have to be ignorant to think that controlling wolf numbers wouldn't be a benefit. I'll bet if enough RMEF members threatened to leave unless RMEF took a stance against wolves, it would happen. I would definetly rejoin. With any big organization it seems to be all about the money.

What in your opinion would be considered taking a stance against wolves. Politically, offering bounties, what?
They have already said they support de-listing of wolves, so management by the states can take over.
You aren't going to get anything better than state control, its not like they are going to say, "OK, this was a bad idea, everyone go shoot every wolf you can find". It would be nice for elk, but it just ain't gonna happen.

Originally I read in RMEF mag that to have a healthy elk population you need a healthy predator population and that was reasoning behind contibuting to wolf reintroduction. This whole thread was about people contributing money to elk habitat and finding out that they had some of the money donated to wolf reintroduction. RMEF is big business and big business has clout. I know that in my neighborhood RMEF contibutions would probably double over night if they actively took a stance against wolves. Of course it is all politics and money and media. State control is a step in the right direction as long as the state realizes that it needs very low wolf numbers. More representation to our Federal Government with facts in the anti-wolf favor would certainly help. I don't have the money or time for that, do you? There are those who believe that any changes that people make to the environment is a bad thing. Personally getting rid of the wolves and having more elk shows intelligence for the humane race. I really don't hate the wolves and don't want to see them completely erraticated. I do think any of them that stray outside of the parks should be open season for the fact that they make a really bad neighbor.

Where are you getting the idea they donated money for reintroduction? Was it written somewhere? Or was it an assumption by the guys down at the bar? The only thing the elk foundation ever paid for was research on wolves. If you want Congress to act, they are not going to jump when the "good 'ol boys" tell them to, they want to see some pencil-pushing biologist and all his research tell them they need to act. I don't agree with this, it is just a fact of life. They should be listening to the hunters and houndsmen who are spending 10x more time in the woods than any biologist. MT FWP has a place on their website to report wolf sightings, kills, etc. How many actually take the time to log on and tell them? More people need to get off their own ass and inundate them with concerns, not just go over to their buddy's house and p!$$ and moan about it. Granted they are a bunch of secrective dorks about wolves but there are ways around that, it called FOIA, Freedom of Information Act, if they have the info on their computer at work, you are privy to it.
And by actively taking a stance against wolves, you want them to put political pressure on our state leaders? Articles in Bugle against them? Do you want to see money put toward something? I am serious, you tell me exactly what it would take for you to join the RMEF.

I am serious, if you actually read prior responce, before you started blabbing,you would see that you all your questions have already been answered.

If you read what I said, you would see they have done these things and it still isn't good enough for you because you are still wimpering about them not doingenough. So I was thinking there must still be something else you want to see.

Just talked with our local chapter president and he still maintains that the current stance is neutral. The original stance proved to be very unpopular. I'm going to try to get petitions signed at our local banquets to hopefully prompt an active stance against the wolf population by the RMEF. Maybe if they find that the majority of members would like to see cotributions toward wolf population control, they will feel a need to do so. Currently there seems to be a fear of ruffling the wolf lovers panties. Besides seeing the wolves have a direct effect on our elk population, I've hunted with five dogs now that wolves have killed and have several friends with simular incidents. If you don't believe that money has the power to get things done, where are you? I want to go to your planet.

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.

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.