Contributors to this thread:
Not sure how I missed it, but David Allen is out as the leader of RMEF. Effective February first Nancy Holland, is the new President and CEO. The Feb. press release says she is the "interim" president and CEO, but the current website makes no mention of interim status. I was a big fan of David Allen. His plain spoken, down to earth approach was refreshing, and a great asset to RMEF. The statements about his departure are a little cryptic, so curious if anyone knows more about this change. Thanks, Bill
It is my opinion that RMEF got themselves back on track with the majority of their base soon after David Allen was named leader of the org. I hope they stay on track.
On the MeatEater podcast he said he was retiring.
If you look on the RMEF website, it states they're hiring for a CEO.
Under the jobs link
I think Mr. Allen continued the mission of the RMEF while he was in the Pres-Chair/CEO.
Looking forward to many more productive/protecting land and access from the RMEF
Sorry to see him go, he seemed to do an excellent job in the role.
Big Fin for president!! ;-)
Big Fin would be perfect!
Hope I did'nt hear the rumor right but Big Fin is for Wolves...please correct me if I'm wrong..
That's incorrect. He was one of the folks on our side during the fight for reintroduction, although the original "pact" was an agreement from both sides on a total number of wolves that was abandoned by the other side as soon as it was met. And he was the first to film a wolf hunt in MT as far as I remember. He's been tirelessly advocating for us since and pointing out that we cannot trust the other side as they've gone back on their word after the fact and have used compromise as a foot-in-the-door, so to speak.
Heard her speak last Thursday night and talked with some board members during Elk Camp, she is interim and the search is on. If Allen had anything to do with the screwed up mess that Elk Camp has become, he should’ve been run off.
Idly Archer...that is what I thought...but talked to someone deeply involved in many of these issues and told me Rinella...Newberg and Mahoney are all in favor. I really was stunned I told him I didn't know ANYONE who wasn't strongly against it and he said the over 40 crowd all against and most of the under 40 crowd for it. I was blown away after what I see as disasters where it has happened. He said it was a really tough spot for RMEF and their public "statement was very vague trying to play boths sides when i would think it would be slam dunk against. He also said he was sure that wolves would be re-introduced in colorado within three years. Adding most of these guys see themselves as conservationists first and hunters second
"RMEF staunchly supports wolf management in the form of hunting and trapping, especially in undermanaged predator populations that have a more significant impact on elk and other wildlife. Biologists agree there is no science to refute the viability of managing wolves as with other species. "
Rmef didn't come out in solid opposition to the introduction and that turned off some people.
I would guess the people that think the book "the real wolf" is factual are probably the same people that think Newberg is pro wolf. I'm sure he will post up soon enough.
One thing has to be said about evolving opinions. Hind sight is 20/20.
Personally, I was ok with wolf introduction back then too as was originally outlined by the agreements made between all parties. And in all honesty, if those commitments had been honored and state management had been allowed from the moment the recovery numbers were met, I'd probably still be on board with it. But with what I know now, then definitely not. And I'd assume that the actors accused would agree.
Look, there's room for some wolves in the lower 48, even if they're not needed by our standards, seeing as we manage the game populations just fine without them and there are 200,000 wolves on this planet, so they are absolutely not "endangered." To be honest, wolves do make the wilderness a bit more wild and they are iconic animals that add something to the ecosystem. But they're not needed and are, in all honesty, a huge problem in modern America in the lower 48, as it is not the 13th century anymore and America is no longer a sparsely populated contiguous wilderness.
If the other side had honored their original positions at the bargaining table, it would have been fine. But it was not, and thus, the reintroduction of wolves was a clusterfxxx and ridiculous from the get go. The actors that advocated for us in the beginning of it all did so in good faith and what they agreed to was righteous. But they were lied to. You can't hold that against them.
That doesn't make them "pro-wolf." And those same actors have the benefit of hindsight now, just as we all do. The problem is, if we hadn't started from a position of bargaining, we very well could have ended up in a position down the road (now) where we still just looked like selfish blood-thirsty killers with no moral high ground and no true love of wildlife. We know we love wildlife, but these urbanites don't understand it. And we would not have any moral high ground to claim that we ought to be making decisions for wildlife because we were, are, and will continue to look out for the best interests of wildlife.
As it stands, we have the moral high ground as far as integrity goes and honesty at our backs. We also have science. We're not better off for it currently, but things are evening out and the seasons are coming back.
We also earned dividends that are coming back to us right now with the grizzly season in WY (that will probably extend to ID and MT next year, I'm guessing) as we've shown to be the level-headed side and disproved the oft-accused notion that we'll exterminate these iconic predators if given the chance.
All the folks you mentioned have my full support and I trust each of them as ambassadors of my way of life to the masses and against the human-haters that would force us to be something we're not.
I hope I'm wrong ...love to hear I'm wrong...... been is a sour mood since I heard....I was under the impression these people were fighting HARD against it...it seems like such a clear threat to hunting opportunity. In my opinion THE most important factor in hunter recruitment and retention is hunter SUCCESS and yes I know success is defined in many forms and I get much out of a hunt other than taking and animal. But make no mistake that part is important for me and most others and it whats us believe the efforts and struggles are for an attainable goal. Would I quit hunting if I went out hunts without seeing anything...nope...but many people would... Our whiz bang world offers to many things to do. Seeing and taking animals goes down when wolves are in the mix. I have heard the stories first hand from friends in WY_MT_ID and AK. Its all bad. It has to they eat and basically terrorize them year round. That's what they do.
That is indeed what they do. And that's what they've been doing for a long time. And the game animals didn't go extinct. With proper state management, it's not that bad; we can prevent the boom-bust nature of predator-prey numbers that has been the history of of these animals. IMO, preferably, they wouldn't exist here in the lower 48. There's just too many people here and too much land development. They belong in the vast wilderness areas of Canada and AK.
I've hunted elk in wolf-grizz areas in WY and, less-so, in ID, for the past 6 years. There's still plenty of elk (except in ID :). We just need to keep predator numbers from out gaining what the prey base can handle.
Back to your original comment though, there is a reality on the ground and that is we have to realize what the facts are on the ground. It may be time for us to dig our heels in and not give ground, but we have to, at times, be reasonable when our decision is between compromise and being marginalized.
A lot of conservatives didn't want to vote for DJT in 2016, but the other option was HRC.
Anyone who thought that we could "manage wolves" to any specific guidelines before, or after reintroduction was a fool. Wolves/Canine's cannot be managed by traditional hunt and shoot/steel trap methods with today's societal social structure. The only way we got rid of 99% of them to begin with (they were never gone) was by means that have been, and will continue to be outlawed for decades... Fools got us here, and there is no going back.
Position on wolves is not super high on my list of importance for the new CEO. Personally I'd like to see them against new introductions and for state management, but ok with letting their range expand naturally as long as the state's they expand into are allowed to manage them from the get-go.
Higher on my priority list would be someone who spends money wisely with priorities on access and habitat. They are a powerful organization and can do a lot of good with the right person at the helm. Revamping their computer system and website to make it more friendly for us volunteers trying to organize banquets would be nice, too.
Elkman- my thoughts too, thank you.
The RMEF is head and shoulders above any other conservation group in the US. They have set aside more land for hunters than any other group. They have advocated for science-based decisions regarding the management of wildlife. The name RMEF would suggest that they only care about elk but they are involved in way more than that. Many projects include installing drinkers so antelope can survive. Other projects are designed to help out Sage Grouse. In the big picture I think that wolves are probably only 10% of the RMEF's concern so I'm not sure why so many posts here regarding the next CEO of the RMEF are focusing on one issue. Personally, I think that Randy Newberg would make a great CEO because he seems very well rounded on the issues that are facing the future of elk and the wild places that they (and we) need.