RMEF and wolves
 

I have heard several times that the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has donated money to wolf reintroduction. Is that true!?

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

I hope not!!!

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

The RMEF has maintained no position on the wolf issue. Their refusal to be outspoken against the reintroduction has angered a lot of people. Their recent construction of a 13 million dollar facility was not well recieved by many who felt the money was better spent elsewhere. Their magazine has become increasingly environmental leaning as well. Last year I dropped my membership for the first time since 1996. I'm not sure right now how I feel about the RMEF. While critical habitat is an important issue for the long term management of elk herds, limited access is also becoming a critical issue with management agencies. Urban sprawl and out of state money is locking up many areas once accessable to hunters. With the re-introduction of the wolf, and their expanding presence in the wild, combined with land lock ups, it appears that the wolf may become the primary elk management tool as opposed to hunters. Is it possible that the RMEF may one day find their usefulness has expired? I don't know, but somebody needs to start focusing on access, and coming up with solutions to this increasing problem. Nobody realizes that better then Montanabob and myself, who spent many hours classing hundreds of elk feeding on private, closed to all hunting property, owned by a out of state corporate CEO from Intel.[:'(]

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

Thier previous management was prowolf. And if I was betting, they still are. When the wolf issue peaked, RMEF was writting articles, two to one, in favor of the wolf reintroduction. I wrote a letter to the editor accusing them of being prowolf and they weremistateing thier mission statement, that is printed in the magazine. About two years ago, they published my letter and responded, I wish I had the issue. I was so furious I threw it away and pledged to never support them again.

Quote, they replied to my accusation, we feel the canadian grey wolf is an important,or intrigal,part of any ecosystem and the reintroduction is a step in the right direction in creating a balance. end quote.

Inthe past year they have back tracked, changed leadership and now straddle the fence with thier green a$$!

I was an annual member since 1989, my son who outfits and guides was a supporting member, and my youngest son was alsoan annual member. None of us belong nor support the RMEF!

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

muley69 makes some excellent points! Especially about access!

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

Wolves kill elk - lots of elk. How can an organization be pro elk and not take a stand against wolves? Wolves also run outfitters out of business - thats a fact!

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

Seems to me the RMEF has in recent years, spent more time, money, and energy reintroducing Elk to lacations back east!
It's hard enough to find Wapiti without shipping them out of here wholesale!
You guys near Yellowstone know first hand what the wolf has done to the ecosystem. I hear they are actually creating such a competition as to run the Grizz out!?
Best thing we can do, reintroduce some wolves and Grizz in Central Park.
Let them see what happens first hand!

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

See if I can stir the Pot, right from their web site..
"





Wolves
RMEF supports de-listing wolves as soon as possible, so that management authority can be assigned to states. RMEF also supports federal funding of state management programs for wolves. We encourage science-based management that responds to economic and social impacts, and seeks balance between predators, prey, habitat and people.
"

http://www.rmef.org/pages/foundfacts.html

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

Is this a no hunting or an exclusive hunting area? At least a no hunting area grows elk for everyone to hunt when they leave the ranch. Exclusive access is the real threat to hunting.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

I don't get it.....why are these damn wolves so protected?????......forget about the fact that there are tons of them out there and they are destroying the elk/moose population...most states even deny that they have wolf packsin particulay areas.....while hunting the Big Horn Mtns in WY earlier this year, we spotted a couple at approx 500 yds away and they fled upon spotting us (which leads me to be beleive that hunters are shooting at them-"GOOD"). Later that day we went by a check station and advised the fish & game officer there and he denied the fact that they have wolf packs there... we insisted that they were wolves and he stated that they were probably coyotes...HAHAHAHA...trust me,"they were wolves"...later that day, we spoke to a nearby rancher and advised him of what the g&f Officer told us and he laughed. When we asked why he was laughing he simply stated that they know that there are wolves there but they continue to deny it. That rancher continued to tell us that several of his cattle have been attacked and he doesn't hesitate shooting at wolves whenever he's given the opportunity. I think the fed govt has got to step in and do something about regulating the wolf population....just my opinion :eek:

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

Did anybody see Jim Zumbo's article on "Bull's Nests". Well I imagine the locales have seen them. A big Monster Bull will not migrate down with the rest of the herd, as long as he can find an area that has food & water. He will stay in this area until spring. Now what do you think happens when hungry wolves find this nest. (But remember game scientists say that wolves only attack the weak or injured elk. YOU BET) I say they get the bull up & run him through the deep snow, until he's worn down & then kill & eat him.I'm also no longer a RMEF member. Their job is to care about ELK & improvingELK enviroment &ELK hunters.:eek:

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

I did read an article where RMEF supported the wolf reintroduction a long time ago and asked one of our local committee members about it. He said that was true and repeated the RMEF's stance on needing predators for a healthy heard (you know they only kill the sick and injured).
I quit the RMEF and so has that committee member, have no plans to go see the new multi-million dollar center they built with the money that everyone thought was going to elk habitat. Find it upsetting that I gave money unknowingly that may have been donated to support wolf reintroduction.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

I say let licenced hunters be the predator. As bad as some Game & Fish agencies can be, you have to admit that herd management is much better than 100 years ago, even 50.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

Having just joined RMEF in december,they sent me a sept-oct back issue in early Jan.What a shock!!!! I thought I had joined Rocky Mountain WOLF Foundation. It had about 10 articles and stories about wolves that seemed to me to try to "soften us up" on them and hardly any elk hunting articles.
Having hunted in central Id in 03 and 04 I personally saw how they can affect hunting.We couldn't understand why no bulls were answering us untill we saw fresh wolf tracks in the snow and later saw plenty elk tracks too. the wolves made the elk quiet.
I will not be renewing with RMEF

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

Some of you might find this entertaining. An article written in the Casper Star Tribune a couple of weeks ago said a scientest had done extensive research and concluded that hunters and the drought have a much larger impact on the Yellowstone elk herd than wolves and are to blame for the large decrease in the herd over the last ten years. He says the fact that the wolf reintroduction program started about ten years ago is purely coincidence. By the way, lets not forget that hunting is illegal in Yellowstone! While I did find the article semi-humorous just because its a joke that someone would actually believe such things, I was dissapointed that Wyoming's most popular newspaper ran such a ludacris article on the front page

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

windriverhnter, I read the same article. I bought the paper & threw it away after I read the article.

Just in case you guys have not figured it out yet? I HATE Wolves.:D
I wish the federal goverment would turn over wolf management to the states & walk away. I do not trust the feds to manage them the right way.
I was a long time member of the RMEF. I dropped my membership two years ago.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

I like your attitude Wolf Killer. The federal government does not know what's best for Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho know what's best for WY, MT, and Idaho.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

I agree with you Wolf....I think ALL HUNTERS should drop their RMEF memberships....

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

The RMEF never donated money to wolf re-introduction, they have provided money for research however, tosupport the facts that wolves have "recovered" and need to be de-listed. If you want wolves delisted, Congress needs to hear sound biological data, not a bunch of wound up hunters. They did take a very soft even pro-wolf stance in the beginning, now have changed leadership and stance as well. They promote de-listing so the states can manage their own wolves. The RMEF is a very large organization that is not composed only of hunters, even though hunters are by far the majority of the group, and benefit the most from theiraquisitions. The RMEF would never have had the power to stop this politically driven environmental fiasco, not to mention an act of Congress.No matter what they did, it would have been too much or not enough, and people would be cancelling memberships. Do you guys actually believe wolf re-introduction in Yellowstone was even about wolves or elk? Many are yapping about access, development, winter range. That is what the RMEF is trying to do,save that developable winter range from interests not concerned about elk and/or hunting. The recent purchase in the Elkhorns is a prime example. They saved that land from a developer from Bozeman, literally minutes from being bought and subdivided and lost from hunting forever. It makes me nervous that so many hunters bash an organization that recognizes a need to "save" habitat, AND is pro-hunting.
And the new building. The money for that building did not come from banquets, subscriptions, etc.. The money for that building came from specific donations of money, labor, and materials specific for the building, even the landscaping was a complete donation. The mortgage payment left over is actually less than the RENT the RMEF was paying for their previous location. Did you know that? Now they have some awsome collateral for more land, which means more elk habitat, and more hunting opportunities. Do you have more faith in the Forest Circus, the State, or big timber companies like Plum Creek, not to sell their lands to the highest bidders? They are already doing it.
Heck if you still hate the RMEF, then give your money to other pro-habitate groups like Sierra Club, Earth First, Alliance for the Wild Rockies. See how they view hunting and where your money gets spent there. Can you say LOIYAS!!!

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

Hey Garminator, I live in Sheridan, WY alongside the Big Horn Mountains and I've seen wolves three times now while elk hunting. The G&F don't want to publicly admit there are wolves there, but trust me, they are. Two years ago while camped on the east end of She Bear Mountain in the Walker Prairie area of the Big Horns I encountered two wolves, who like the ones you encountered, took off like rockets when they saw me. That night we had a local game warden ride through our camp and stop for a cup and chat. While he wouldn't officially admit that they were wolves, he did admit off the record that he was familiar with the pair that I had described and seemed to understand and actually agree with my anger over the fact the doggone things were there! As I've stated before, I'll just practice the SS&S (Shoot, Shovel, & Shut Up) theory in dealing with wolves in the Big Horns. I used to hunt over in the Tetons 10 years ago and elk were everywhere. You were all but guaranteed one if you went. The last time I was there all we saw in four days of tough hunting were wolf tracks. I just pray it won't be the same type of situation over here on the eastern side of the state.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

I've been pretty worried about wolves moving into the bighorns too. Since the reintroduction of the wolves I have stopped hunting elk above dubois as have the rest of my family members. I find hunting in the Bighorns and other mountain ranges much more fun because I see a lot more animals since wolves and bears haven't decimated their numbers and I don't have to fight grizzlies off of my kills. I want it to stay that way, but I don't think it will because like Elk Buster said wolves are in the Bighorns now and I know a wolf has been seen around Crook's Mountain too. While I'm living in Sheridan this summer I'll have to carry my 7mag with me on ATV rides and join in on the SS&S;). I don't think there's any other way to preserve the Big Horns if the feds won't turn control over to Wyoming like they should.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

quote;
Heck if you still hate the RMEF, then give your money to other pro-habitate groups like Sierra Club, Earth First, Alliance for the Wild Rockies. See how they view hunting and where your money gets spent there. Can you say LOIYAS!!! quote;


No give it to the NRA. They will and dotake political stances on protecting hunters, hunting, and hunters rights. Without hunters there will be no money to manage and protect game. And with out the right to keep and bear arms you are stuck hunting only with a bow.

There are over 50,000,000 gun owners in the USA and a mere 4,000,000 are dues paying members of the NRA!

Hate is a strong word, dislike and distrust is my choice. There are only so many dollars to go around, mine go to the NRA.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

Good to hear that Elk, at least I know i'm not goin nuts, everyone was doubting my "Wolf Sighting"...& again, it's a real shame that these wolves are taking over the country....Sorry to hear about your experience in the Tetons, I would have been real disappointed. Anyway, keep huntin, keep the beutifull Big Hornsbeutifulland be safe buddy. P.S. I think i'll adopt you SS&S rule.;)

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

Last year at this time my son and myself were lion hunting north of Tensleep. On two different days we found what we thought were wolf tracks. Three sets. When we went back to town we mentioned it to the local Game Warden and he comfirmed there was three in a pack and one single wolf in the Big Horns.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

That's interesting Randy, so did you finally get that cat you were lookin for? & have you seen any bear up in that area? good talking to you & by the way, you've got some of the most amazing country i've ever seen out there.......I can't wait to go back, I drive my wife nuts talking about how much I miss being in Wyoming:(:D....take care.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

Yes the dogs caught the cat. It was a medium size female. We never shot it with anything but the camera.

There are pretty good bear populations up there. I have only seen one, but we see tracks, scat, and tree trunks that have been clawed.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

Thanks RMEF! [/b]
[/b]
[/b]
Gardiner late elk hunt to be cut[/b]
By SCOTT McMILLION, Chronicle Staff Writer
HELENA -- The winter elk hunt in Gardiner will be cut from 1,180 hunters to 148 hunters, mirroring the steady downward spiral of the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission decided here Thursday.

The hunt is likely to be discontinued altogether in the future, said Kurt Alt, FWP regional wildlife manager.
"It's probably going to go away," he said.

He cited the heavy density of wolves in and near the park, coupled with other predation, as a reason for cutting the hunt by more than 90 percent by January, 2006.

The northern Yellowstone herd hit a peak of about 19,000 animals in 1994. The next year, wolves were reintroduced and elk have been on a steady decline ever since.

"It's just one more mouth to feed," Alt said of the wolves.

As recently as 2000, FWP offered more than 2,800 tags for the late hunt, which aimed to harvest mostly female elk that migrated out of Yellowstone National Park.

"We expect to observe less than 8,000 elk during this December's count," Alt said. "Wolf lovers will have a hard time accepting that wolves are having such an impact."

He noted that in 1968, when the National Park Service stopped culling elk inside the park, there were about 4,000 elk there. By 1975, the year the late hunt commenced, the number had climbed to 12,000. In those years, there were no wolves, about half as many grizzly bears as there are today, and a lot fewer lions, Alt noted.

He said that, with the abundance of predators in and near the park, he fears that "one bad winter" could drop the elk herd to the 1968 level and the smaller herd would then face all those predators.

Critics of wolf reintroduction have pointed to reduced elk numbers for years and blamed wolves for them.

Now it turns out they're right, at least partly.

Recent studies in Yellowstone have shown that 70 percent of elk calves die from predators by the end of September of their first year.

Bears, both black and grizzly, account for about 60 percent of the calves that die in the first few weeks of their lives in the jaws of predators. After the calves become more mobile, wolves begin killing more of them and bears kill fewer, the studies show.

Springtime counts over the last three years have shown that between 12 and 14 calves per hundred cows have remained alive through the first year of their life.

A calf/cow ratio of about 20 is needed for a herd to sustain itself, Alt told the commission.

FWP commission chairman Dan Walker asked him if he expected to see that level reached within the next 10 years. Alt said "no."

The commission also approved Montana's statewide elk plan, which focuses on ways for people to harvest more elk, if necessary. Unlike the area just north of the park, most elk hunting districts in the state contain more elk than guidelines call for, leading to landowner complaints.

It's possible that some districts could be limited to antlerless elk only, in efforts to reduce populations.

Alt said he is not concerned about wolves causing similar big drops in elk numbers in other parts of the state.

It hasn't happened in northwest Montana, he said, or along the Rocky Mountain Front, where wolves have lived for years.

Wolves will continue to spread out from the park, but a significant number will get get in trouble with livestock and likely will be killed, Alt said.

"Whether they are listed (by the Endangered Species Act) or not, wolves will be managed on landscapes where people live and work," he said.

FWP is taking over many wolf management duties from the federal government.

Once delisted -- a step that could be years away -- Montana hopes to install limited hunting and trapping seasons for wolves, he said.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

ARGGGGGG[:@]!!!!! These kind of articles always make my blood boil after I read them. Simply saying "we told you so" to the feds and wolf lovers doesn't quiet seem adequet. It was no secret that the Yellowstone elk herd was going to be wiped out by wolves when we were trying to stop the reintroduction process in the 90's. All you had to do to see what effect the wolves were going to have was look back in history and see what happened to Alaska's game animals when wolves became protected up there. After entire herds of Dahl sheep and other animals were nearly wiped out the feds finally had to use citizens' tax money to hire proffessionals to shoot the wolves out of airplanes. At the current rate that the wolves are wiping out Yellowstone's elk, it might be only a matter of time until our tax money is used to fix a problem that we tried to fix for free long before it arose. Sound familiar?!?! Oh yeah, the same thing happened when they helped wolves make a comeback in Alaska! Who'd a thunk it?

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

And not a thing you can do about it. You can't defend your dog, you can't defend your horse. Shoved right down our throats!

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

Garminator said, "I think the fed govt has got to step in and do something about regulating the wolf population."
Respectfully, the reason we have problems with Timber wolves (Gray) is that the federal gov't did step in and did something about regulating the wolf pop. In 1973 the federal gov't put the Timber wolf on the endangered species list.
People out West are just starting to see the results of these good intensions gone crazy.
In the lower 48, I think without a doubt Minnesota still has the largest pop. of wolves. For over 30 years people in the northern 1/3 of the state in particular have had to deal with an over pop. of this predator. Whitetail pop. in heavy snow years (e.g. 95, 96) have taken enormous swings down.
Near the shore of Lake Superior the deer pop. held up a little better. But inland it took a decade after those years when wolves were killing the deer herds and most of them weren't eaten except for the prime parts by the wolves.
Wolves like any large predator have their place in the whole system. But so does man/(woman) to help keep those predators including the wolves in check. Beyond a certain pop. level, the wolf is a destructive force. If left go too far, it'll cause its own pop. to drop significantly when the man prey animals are killed off or at least to a point that the predators can't be sustained.

MN has tried to get a wolf pop. plan in place, so that limited hunting/trapping can be done in high pop. areas like NE MN. However, each time the greenie weenies scream and bawl and carry on like someone is talking about hunting their mothers! Of course many of them think the Earth in their mom, so how do you have a rational discussion with people like that or politicians in Wash. DC or states' capitols where many of them wouldn't know a wolf from Lassie or a deer from a character in a Disney movie.
I hope you folks out West have more success talking sense into your state leaders to push for limits on large predators like Gray wolf and Grizzlies than we have had in MN on the former. Good luck!

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

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.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

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.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

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.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

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.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

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.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

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.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

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.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

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.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

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.

RE: RMEF and wolves
 

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.