Posts Tagged ‘Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’

May16

An Un-Natural State of Fear: Oregon Outdoor Council versus Lions, Tigers (Wolves) and Bears

By Bob Ferris

The Onion has some brilliant satire and some that bites a little too deep.  One that is just right was a recent one they did about wolves and the millions of people killed each year by this rapacious predator that stalks people at copiers and coffee bars and rips their throats out in a heartbeat (see: Study: Wolf Attacks Still Leading Cause Of Death In U.S.).   Yes, I read it in the Onion so it must be true.
 
This is on my mind at this point because I recently spent too much time on the phone with Jerod Broadfoot executive director of the Oregon Outdoor Council (OOC) after talking to a peeved former insider at OOC who gave me an earful on Jerod and the shady goings-on at his operation.
 

The Onion piece echoed in my brain because Jerod peddles fear.  Fear of mountain lions, bears, coyotes and wolves.  Whether he actually believes the Onion-esque tales he tells the public or not he has lobbied for bear baiting, cougar hunting with dogs, and pushed to allow bow hunters to carry pistols or rifles because the risk of cougar attacks is so high. The risk for cougar attacks in Oregon is so high…How high?.. Well it could happen, but has not.

But just to show that Mr. Broadfoot works all sides of the street, he also lobbied to get the criminal penalties for cock fighting lowered from a felony to a misdemeanor.  Now more fighting cocks will have the opportunity to fight and profit from their efforts.  And he also lobbied—it appeared—to allow minors to handle explosives because there seems to be a shortage of children playing with matches and high explosives. (Sorry, once the Onion gets into your head.)
 
For Broadfoot Camouflage is a Fabric of Deception
 

It should be remembered that Mr. Broadfoot (shown with RMEF CEO David Allen above) cut his lobbying teeth at PacWest Communications.  PacWest is somewhat notorious in lobbying circles for their ends-always-justify-the-means and take-no-prisoners approaches.  Over the years PacWest has formed fake “astro-turf” groups, reached deeply and often into their bag of dirty tricks, and stands firmly with the giants of misinformation such as The Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute who have brought us illustrious campaigns on second hand smoke and climate change.

Mr. Broadfoot’s own personal forte is the miss-direct.  He has employed it ably with the OOC by serving up an All-American 2nd Amendment hot dog wrapped in a bun of predator hatred.  He hopes that this will camouflage what is probably his real intention which is a wider opening of the door to logging, mining, ranching and energy interests.  When confronted with this he claims it is not true but he is a little like the child who raided the cake and with chocolate glazed cheeks claims innocence.  His actions and past speak much louder than his protestations.  
 
Headed to Vegas
I will be presenting to the SCI-Foundations Conservation Committee on a project I am doing for them about wildlife conservation and energy production being able to coexist to benefit wildlife and our domestic energy needs. Broadfoot Media Site
 
So what chocolate does he have on his face? Jerod comes from a timber family and he lives in a ranching community.  He has lobbied on behalf of the oil and timber industries for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on the Healthy Forest Initiative.  Both were priorities set by the Bush Administration that Mr. Broadfoot as chair of the Oregon Sportsmen for Bush worked so hard to get into office.  
 
Although one could argue what’s past is past, with Jerod that is not the case. His current rhetoric and that of his colleagues and friends is decidedly pro-industry.  He regularly advocates for more timber harvests to “enhance” wildlife habitat and condemns those who might think about rules and regulations to stem habitat loss and degradation.  The attacks on Sally Jewell’s record are perfect examples.  Certainly these commentaries are salted with phrases like “anti-hunting” but given the material thrust of the actions–regarding logging, mining and energy–this is really no more than camouflage.  
 
“Another priority for the OOC is to ensure state management of wolf populations including allowing ranchers to protect their families and livestock without bureaucratic red tape and lawsuits from anti-hunting organizations.” OOC Press release posted on i-Fish
 
Mr. Broadfoot has denied links to ranching, but then he also seems convinced that folks are more interested in what he says rather than his actions.  His advocacy for control of wolves and increased logging could be construed as being pro-hunting if he also acknowledged that those de-forested areas should be cattle-free, but he does not.  OOC’s facebook page in fact questions the impact of grazing on wildlife.  What? [1,2,3]
 
Science, Science Everywhere…? 
 
"Wolves have wiped out elk and deer herds in Idaho and have a current population growth of 24%." Oregon Outdoor Council website
 
My conversation with Jerod was at times surreal.  When I challenged him on his misstatements about predators (see above) he claimed that all statements were reviewed by their science team.  So then I asked: Who is on your science team?  His response was telling, the only name he remembered was Larry Irwin, but he urged me to look at his website.  (By the way, I would think that any leader of an organization that was actually driven by science would know who was on his science advisory team.)
 
So what did I find?  OOC’s scientific team consists of three people. One is indeed Larry Irwin PhD with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. that bills the organization as an independent, non-profit research institute focusing on environmental topics of interest to the forest products industry.  The Council’s roughly $14 million budget comes mainly from timber company dues.  This hardly lends credence to the Mr. Broadfoot’s argument of distance from the timber industry.
 
The other scientific experts are Richard K. Stroud DVM, MS and James O. Pex MS D-ABC.  The former is a retired forensic veterinarian for the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the latter is a forensic expert on blood spattering often called in on criminal trials. Neither of them are wildlife biologists, ecologists or experts on conservation or predators.
 
And just as Batman has Robin
 
Just as Batman has Robin, as a dedicated compatriot, Mr. Broadfoot has Dominic Aiello as his side kick.  Mr. Aiello is the new vice president of OOC’s board–replacing Jerod–and appears to spend a great deal of his time looking to do electronic battle with the anti-hunting evil doers of the world.  His fervor has gotten him expelled from a few facebook pages including ours, but his rhetoric and dedication—even with the help of Mr. Broadfoot and his media machine—was unable to garner him the vice president slot at the Oregon Hunter’s Association.  (Reports from insiders say that the vote was not even remotely close.)
 
Mr. Aiello also spends a lot of time on the I-Fish network and while his comments are amusing they are also illustrative of the inherent operational and philosophical conflicts at OOC.  His political philosophies, lack of knowledge, and inexperience keep him and his organization in a constant state of defense bordering on embarrassment.  
 
How so?  Two examples are his recent celebration of a timber industry victory on the regulation of roads and his defense of suction dredging as a legitimate use on Oregon Rivers.  When the more informed posters pointed out that elk needed road-less areas and that this was not a victory for elk or hunters he just kept right on going without self-editting.  
 
Likewise, his defense of the right of suction dredgers to tear up river bottoms on a post calling people to a hearing on a moratorium raised hackles (sorry) and drew comments.  His response was to attack the motivation of a respected fishing guide—the fishermen were not amused.  His comments are troubling both for the supreme confidence he has in his own opinions and the lack of any real basis or grounding backing up his assertions.  While I am sure that his A.A. degree in Business Administration from Henry Ford Community College affords him some expertise applicable to selling Aflac insurance and some of his other enterprises, it seems scant preparation to serve on the board of any state-wide organization or hold authoritative debates on complex ecological relationships.
 
Of Bibles and Bandoliers 
 
“Our featured speaker is Dominic Aiello, who is Vice President of Oregon Outdoor Council, whose mission is "To promote and protect outdoor pursuits in Oregon including hunting, fishing, trapping, wildlife management, habitat and species management, public access, outdoor recreation and gun ownership." As you can see, Dominic's responsibilities cover nearly every aspect of our outdoor experience. CrossTrackers website under April Events
 
So who all is drinking this proffered Kool Aid?  One group who was pleased to have Mr. Aiello as a guest speaker and he seemed pleased to be there is the Cross Trackers.  This group “exists to glorify God by walking beside men while enjoying His creation through hunting and fishing.”  
 
 
Now my parents took me to church when I was a child but I must have slept through the part about concealed weapons being part of the religious dogma, particularly on a Sunday.  It might just be me, but praying for your quick-draw shoulder holster to not malfunction seems fairly inconsistent with the turn- the-other-cheek lessons I seem to remember.  
 
 
And while Mr. Aiello’s jubilation following the Cross Tracker’s event at meeting Todd Hoffman of Gold Rush certainly cements his membership in the 18-49 year old male demographic and the “we like machinery and tearing things up” club, it hardly speaks to his environmental and conservation street cred as the water quality and fisheries impacts of gold mining are well known and notorious.  This also demonstrates a monumental insensitivity to his potential colleagues in Oregon and also Alaska who are embroiled in fights against suction dredge mining in Oregon and the Bristol Bay mine in Alaska.
 
Poor Attention to Accounting and Legal Issues Means Poor Performance in a Non-Profit
 
 
Financially, OOC and OOCF are not significant enterprises.  A little money here and a little money there with most of their funding coming from a single check from Oregon Hunters Association.  What is significant is how they spent the money and failed to heed the legal and accounting advice of their professionals.  I have seen the ledger sheets so I could go into chapter and verse about how Jerod Broadfoot submitted questionable and poorly documented expenses as well as blew through IRS limits for lobbying expenses without blinking.  He also traveled with his wife (on OOC's dime) to places like Las Vegas and stayed in a luxury boutique hotel room like the one pictured above during a DC trip, but it is easier to just let their former secretary/treasurer Steve Chapman tell the tale.  
 
 
Now I may not always agree with Mr. Chapman on predator-prey ecology or some esoterica associated with hunting and fair chase, but both of us agree that 1) non-profit monies need to be used for non-profit purposes; 2) the rationale for any non-profit expenditures needs to be well documented; 3) board members have explicit fiduciary responsibilities which include avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest; and 4) the fundamental imperatives of acting responsibility, telling the truth, and obeying the law are paramount.   These principles do not appear to be embraced by the current leadership at OOC and OOCF and that is likely to cause them legal and political problems in the near future.
 

Posted by bob in Blog, Home Page Hot Topic, Restoring Wolves and Other Species, Uncategorized

3 Comments

Keep Reading →

May16

Predatory Nonprofit?

 

Fight over cougars and finances

By Camilla Mortensen
May 16, 2013 
 
It all seemed so easy to businessman Steven Chapman — an avid hunter, he wanted to influence the Oregon Legislature on its hunting bills. The deer and elk herds in Oregon are too small, Chapman said, and wanted to do something about it. It takes millions of dollars in California to influence legislation, according to Chapman, but only thousands in Oregon. 
 
In only a few years, the lobbying group he helped form, Oregon Outdoor Council (OOC), shot from obscurity to a legislative force, but now Chapman finds himself pitted against fellow hunters as he alleges misspent money and ethical wrongdoings by the lobbying-oriented OOC and its non-lobbying partner, the Oregon Outdoor Council Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Chapman says he wants to expose OOC and OOCF because he feels that he created a “haphazard” group that isn’t targeting the real source of problems for the animals he hunts.
 
Together with Pendleton-based media-group owner Jerod Broadfoot, Wayne Endicott of Springfield’s Bow Rack and others, Chapman formed OOC with goals that included repealing Oregon’s Measure 18, which keeps hunters from chasing cougars with dogs. OOC was also behind a push on Oregon House Bill 3437, which required that gubernatorial nominees to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission have held some form of fishing or hunting licenses for 10 consecutive years. This would leave nonhunters out of wildlife decisions. 
 
Chapman, OOC and the long-established Oregon Hunters Association (OHA) all share similar goals — to improve the herds for hunters in Oregon — but Chapman says he is no longer 100 percent certain that targeting predators and pushing bills allowing hound hunting or bear baiting are the answer. The problem lies with lands lost to grazing and roads built for logging, he says, not cougars and wolves. That’s not a popular stance to take among conservative hunting organizations that have long blamed and targeted predators.
 
But Chapman’s stance on what could be reducing deer and elk herds isn’t what has him at odds with the nonprofits that he was once part of. Chapman alleges that the OOC and the OOCF unethically misspent funds, misrepresented information and are not acting “in the best interests of hunting, angling or wildlife,” and he lays out a litany of problems. 
 
Chapman says that OOC got $25,000 from the Oregon Hunters Association to conduct a poll in support of legislative initiatives and a potential constitutional amendment, and that part of the reason OOC got the money was because Broadfoot told the group and the OHA that $500,000 in donations would be coming in from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Safari Club International. That money never materialized. Chapman further alleges that Broadfoot misrepresented the results of the poll. Chapman says this damages OOC’s credibility.
 
Chapman, who was the OOC’s secretary-treasurer, also worries that the foundation, OOCF, jeopardized its nonprofit status when out of its $33,000 budget in 2012, it spent $16,000 on a poll relating to a prospective ballot initiative and legislative actions. The IRS limits small nonprofits to spending less than 20 percent of their budget on lobbying. 
 
Chapman also alleges that Broadfoot diverted nonprofit funds for personal use for himself and his wife on a trip to Las Vegas where they stayed in a luxury hotel, pointing to posts on the Broadfoot Media Group website. He had an accountant review the books, and the CPA wrote that “it appears that proper expense authorization and follow up procedures are not being followed carefully, if at all” and called some of the expenditures “highly questionable.”
 
When asked for comment, Broadfoot referred EW to OOC’s attorney Ross Day. Day is also Chapman’s personal attorney, and when asked if that was a problem due to a conflict of interest, Day said,  “Not that I’m aware of.” 
 
Chapman has contacted the Department of Justice over the money issue and says that in turn, OOC board members have sent a state police officer to Chapman’s doorstep.
 
Day says the OOC board has concluded that Chapman’s allegations are unfounded and that “We have a disagreement here, whether or not money was spent, I don’t want to say wisely, but as efficiently as possible. It doesn’t mean anything untoward has occurred.”
 
But in a July 2012 email to the OOC board, Day wrote “when OOC pays for a trip to attend a conference, speaking engagement, whatever, the person can only be there on OOC business, not promoting any other organization/business/cause or otherwise. When money from a c(4) is spent, it can only be spent on purposes related to the c(4). If someone goes to a conference, for instance, on OOC’s dime, and then promotes another organization (say, Oregonians In Action), there could be problems down the road with the IRS (which I, as OOC’s lawyer, am responsible for avoiding).” 
 
Later in August, Day wrote, “It is my job to advise OOC on how to avoid enforcement actions by agencies like the IRS and the Oregon DOJ. The easiest and surest way to avoid enforcement actions is by making sure your books are clean to begin with; that way you do not have to agree to ‘follow the law’ if and when the government comes knocking at your door.”
 
The July email from Day also detailed a report from former Republican state senator-turned NRA lobbyist Roger Beyer, who had been asked to join the OOC board but declined. Beyer discussed a “breakdown” in the relationship between OOC and OHA, citing among other things the claims of funding that didn’t materialize and that the OHA was given only abstract data from the poll and not the actual poll results. Broadfoot had sent an email to the OOC board saying, “Do not share. We need to discuss this tonight. Numbers are not good overall but it does provide us with good information to move forward with.”
 
Day says, “Taken out of context I know what that email looks like,” but says OOC was under no obligation to release the results of the poll. Duane Dungannon of the OHA says that there were “differences of opinions about the results that were obtained” but that OHA thought it made sense that the poll results would be held close and not sent out to wind up in the hands of opponents or on websites.
 
But in the end, whether OOC survives and whether it works with OHA on future hunting legislation or not, Chapman says he feels culpable for having created an organization that by targeting predators and not the true culprits — grazing and road building — is doing a disservice to the hunting community. 
 

Posted by bob in In The Media, News

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

Mar07

Don Peay: the Man Who Would Be King… Baron

by Bob Ferris
 
Rudyard Kipling wrote a tale once about two pals in the British army serving in India who figured they could travel north to Kafiristan in present-day Afghanistan and essentially create their own mini-kingdom.  The tale was fanciful and was eventually turned into a popular 1975 movie starring Sean Connery and Michael Caine called “The Man who would be King” named after Kipling’s novella.
 
But the absurd nature of this fictional exercise of kingdom creation has not stopped Don Peay, founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Sportsmen for Habitat, Utah Chapter of the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, and Full Curl Society as well as co-founder of Big Game Forever LLC from seeing this as a model for taking the first steps towards bringing that oh-so-modern concept of feudalism to the United States.  And—wait for it—having the taxpayers make significant contributions to the diminishment of their rights and privileges.  Want details?
 
Let’s start with the fact that Mr. Peay believes that our current constitutional construct established under the 10th Amendment where the individual states have control and ownership of wildlife and hold it in the Public Trust is Socialism.  Ouch—strong words for a system that was established so that everyone, not just royalty and gentlepersons, could enjoy this public resource without being branded, beaten or hung for simply hunting, trapping or fishing.  (Mr. Peay should understand that both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are the functional equivalents of emancipation documents expressly written in response to past abuses and to protect us from future peril.)
 
"One state at a time, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife is dismantling the very idea of a public wildlife resource, and replacing it with special privileges for the privileged." Ben Long in High Country News
 
There are some nuances and spins to what Mr. Peay and his colleagues like Corey Rossi—past head of Alaska’s wildlife agency—recently ousted for a dozen wildlife violations—are trying to do, but the “nose under the tent” on their grand scheme is creating programs that privatize wildlife and grant “special” people “special” rights to wildlife owned by all of us.  Those special rights would include hunting outside of hunting seasons, creating areas free of predators, and providing economic incentives for creating super-productive areas on private lands that could include food plots and supplemental feeding (read large-scale baiting) which would likely act to draw game off surrounding public lands.  
 
The introduction of the Canadian Grey Wolf into Northern Rocky Mountains was a wildlife management expirement (sic) which has gone horribly wrong. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation calls it "one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds".  Quote from David Allen former NASCAR executive on Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife website
 
The ecological, economic and social pitfalls of this approach are myriad.  We—with the exception of trophy hunting groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation—have seen the folly of creating feeding grounds for species such as elk and deer.  This scheme taken to its conclusion creates large, fenceless game farms with greatly reduced biodiversity.  It also creates a dynamic to spread more wildlife diseases faster.  If you want chronic wasting disease and Brucellosis hot spots—please sign on the dotted line.
 
The economics are dicey, too.  Right now many people derive income from hunting and fishing from guides and hotel owners to gas stations and restaurants.  Game species are spread rather than concentrated and hunting licenses and access are managed in a manner that optimizes participation and spreads income across a broad base.  What happens to this dynamic when portions of the harvestable game base are drawn away from their current distribution pattern into large, private refugia that can easily accommodate and would welcome their own, on-site facilities including private air strips?   To understand this potential impact think about what Wal-Marts on the outskirts of towns have done to Main Street, America.  
 
Socially this is a case where quality experiences become more and more reserved for people of quality.  In Mr. Peay’s world the biggest and best would be reserved for the “knights” of industry in the land of corporate jets and the rest of us would simply have to suffer along with the leavings and obey rules.  
 
This would also further enhance what are now huge ranches almost exclusively in the West.  Given that these private ranchlands were made possible in large part because of past federal largess like the Homestead Act, made practical through past federal actions displacing their former native and human inhabitants, and made richer by current federal benefits such as farm subsidies and nominal federal grazing fees, you would think that these ranchers, Peay and their allies would first drop a little of their anti-federal rhetoric.  Their near schizophrenic irony of uber-patriotic ranchers hating and badmouthing of the very hand that made their lives possible has always struck me as strange.  
 
And you would also think that they would not be so quick about asking state legislatures and game agencies for privileges and monies that would further their campaigns to create what would essentially be modern-day Baronies—subsidized by the generosity of the “King” and enjoying a rarified legal setting.  Mr. Peay’s recent request from the state of Utah for $300,000 so he could lobby the federal government on wolves is a perfect example of this entitled attitude and has drawn considerable ire from a number of quarters (see 1, 2, 3, 4).
 
“The delisting of the wolf is critical for the recovery and safeguarding of our precious big game assets in America." —Ted Nugent on Big Game Forever LLC website
 
Also Baron Von Peay should also understand—as many of us do—that the most vocal and visible opponents of Socialism are typically Fascists.  But Mr. Peay’s dealings are a little bit more complex than first meets the eye and it is a mistake to simply characterize him as a politically motivated hater of wolves and serial founder of conservation organizations.  In addition to his “conservation” actions, he has manufactured an intricate spiders’ web of non-profits and for-profits that has put hundreds of thousands of dollars into his own coffers (see page 7 and page 8 for examples).  
 
“We have been in the business of selling big game hunting packages to high end clients who sought to hunt with the top tier big game outfitters.” World Trophy Outfitters profile
 
Spider’s web may even be an understatement.  One rapidly gets tired and fuzzy when looking at the mélange of entities set up by this ambitious chemical engineer and petroleum industry consultant turned wildlife entrepreneur.  From his first attempts as a hunting impresario with World Trophy Outfitters, Inc. to his current, more successful efforts to do essentially the same thing in his non-profit empire, this has been a story of building a well-connected—yet cryptic—universe.   
 
Some of these relationships are easy to sort out and some are more complicated.  Take for instance the relationship with Chris Carling and Brand X Communications in Salt Lake City.  Brand X does the web work for several of Peay’s non-profit ventures and Mr. Carling is also the public relations contact for Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.  Brand X is apparently connected with the domain Donpeay.com in some manner as well as the website for the proposed Jordan Cove LNG export facility near Coos Bay which will be facilitated by fracking in the very states where Peay’s groups are most powerful.  The business suite where Brand X is located is also the business address listed for Big Game Forever LLC and the former address of record for Sportsmen for Romney.  
 
“As of March 31, 2007, we had acquired fourteen Dall Sheep hunts for the 2007 and 2008 seasons with Kelly Hougen of Arctic Red River Outfitters, ten of which have been resold. The relationship between Arctic Red River Outfitters and WTO is that of a purchaser and seller of services and these organizations are not affiliated.”  World Trophy Outfitters Inc. Securities and Exchange Commission filing Form 10-KSB for Fiscal year 2007 page 4  
 
And then there is the whole issue with Arctic Red River Outfitters which appears to be owned in part by Peay but also partially owned by Sportsmen for Habitat with officers in common.  And yet on their IRS 990 forms SFH claims no business relations with current or former board members.  What? It is all very interesting but I will leave this to some ambitious investigative reporter who has the time and energy to sort out this can-o-worms or a similarly motivated IRS or SEC agent who ought to be asking some questions.  
 
“As a conservationist, it outrages me that animal rights extremists are using wolves as biological weapons to destroy 100 years of conservation in the western United States.” Jeff Foxworthy—Comedian on Big Game Forever LLC website
 
Peay’s business model is unfortunately a simple one that we have seen before: pedal wolf hatred to those most vulnerable to the messaging and then take millions of dollars’ worth of public resources (in the form of game permits) and sell them to the rich, privileged and influential.  His one variation from this is when he and his entourage sell chances for a coveted permit—letting hundreds act as a virtual “person of privilege”—keeping the myth of equality alive.
 
"My MacMillan River Adventure partner Keith Mark and I are extremely proud of our relationship with Big Game Forever because they are the one organization that recognized the damage that was occurring and the potential total devastation that would occur to our precious wildlife if the wolf issue was not addressed.”  Shawn Michaels WWE Hall of Fame on Big Game Forever website
 
He has been quite effective using the Four Horsemen of American Ignorance (i.e., NASCAR, Wrestling, Redneck Humor, and Ted Nugent) in recruiting an army of willing wolf killers.  The Montana Chapter of the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, for instance, gives away free memberships to individuals who furnish pictures of themselves with dead wolves.  SFW-MT is careful, however, to point out that they do not want pictures of wolves in traps.  Apparently, they understand that there are limits.  
 

There are a lot of chicken and egg issues with Peay and his operations.  Is he trying to forward big game recovery or trying to maximize his connections and curry favor with rich donors to forward his political fundraising?  Why is the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo run by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Mule Deer Foundation a non-profit event rather than a for-profit enterprise because it looks like there is a whole lot more commerce taking place than conservation?  And where is the non-profit argument of public good and benefit in creating better hunting opportunities for folks with an extra $20,000 or $100,000 rolling around in their jeans and in making sure outfitters are fully booked and taxidermists busy?  The charitable purposes of these entities simply seem swamped by the commercial and the political undertones.  And this impression is only magnified by the public financial reporting which lacks a certain openness in detail.  
Like Kipling’s Daniel Dravot and Peachy Carnehan, Peay is of humble beginnings.  When you read his self-narrative you almost feel sorry for the boy whose family lacked the $35 to let him play football, but when he compensates for that missing “sport” in his life by taking 500-yard shots at rare animals the sympathy factor melts away quickly.  He is all about trophies whether it is being photographed next to whatever carcass he has recently created or standing near Dick Cheney, George W. Bush or Orin Hatch.
 
Peay should realize in all of this that the Kipling tale is also a cautionary one.  It describes the ultimate consequences to one who climbs too high and then falls when the myths he has created and promoted are shown to be without merit.   What will happen in all of this when the enabling state wildlife agencies realize that they would probably get more value and benefit if they sold these game permits themselves instead of allowing them to be used to build this convoluted financial empire and thinly disguised political machine?  And when will the everyday hunters out there understand that they are complicit in enriching these groups who are aggressively creating a system designed expressly to grant their precious rights to the privileged few while they are left with the leavings?   
 
So what needs to happen?  Folks need to tell their wildlife agencies in western states that they do not want their precious wildlife in the form of hunting tags and permits given to Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Sportsmen for Habitat, Big Game Forever, or the Full Curl Society to be used in their campaigns to enrich themselves and privatize wildlife.  We also need to remind these agencies of their Public Trust responsibilities to manage wildlife for the public and not just for wealthy trophy hunters and ranchers.  And we need also to remind these wildlife agencies and their governing boards that wildlife should be managed based on the best available science.  In other words, let wildlife agency employees use the degrees that they worked so long and hard to earn.  Here are the electonic links (e-mails and forms) as well as the snail mail and phone for Wyoming.  Please let them know how you feel and pass this blog post around so that others do the same.  Thank you!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wyoming:
 
Wyoming Game & Fish Department Headquarters
5400 Bishop Blvd. Cheyenne, WY 82006
ph: (307) 777-4600
 

 

News and Editorial Coverage:

 

Salt Lake Tribune Editorial: Just cry wolf

Posted by bob in Blog, Bring Back Wolves, California Wolves, Home Page Hot Topic, Northern Rockies Wolves, Oregon Wolves, Restoring Wolves and Other Species, Uncategorized, Washington Wolves

15 Comments

Keep Reading →

Jan10

More Dishonesty from the Elk Dudes

By Bob Ferris
 
On facebook these days many folks post multi-paneled cartoons or photomontages that contain phrases such as “what my parents think I do” or “what my friends think that I do.”  The point of these devices is to show that how people perceive you vary between audiences and also reality.  These are important distinctions to make and part of self-awareness, but they are also the realm of advertisers creating public images for entities and frequently broadening the gap between branding and veracity.
 
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation recently released a marketing video that won awards at a wildlife film festival in Missoula.  The short piece is visually pleasing with wonderful wildlife footage and a sound track by Kenny G. (not to my taste but knock yourself out).  As nice as the piece is, it is really much more about how the RMEF wants folks to see them than the reality of this organization in their present state. 
 
“The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation doesn’t say wipe out all the predators,” Allen said. “But we’ve got to be more aggressive in managing them. We want to see substantially fewer than what we have now.” Quote by RMEF CEO David Allen in Missoulian
 
Watching the video (click here), one would get the impression that RMEF is a conservation group that loves and respects all wildlife—including grizzlies, black bears and cougars—and works on national parks and refuge issues.  Certainly native ungulates such as elk, deer, moose and sheep are featured but this video tells a story of wildlife appreciation: A donation to RMEF will help game animals, but also beavers, loons, and trumpeter swans as well as predators.  The video is painfully misleading as I think you lose the ethical right to include a wildlife species in a promotional video, if you are taking actions or postions that are actaully harmful to it.  
 
“We hope to have grizzly bears as a huntable species in the next several years,” he says. “That would be great, because hunters have paid for a lot of the restoration that’s brought bears back to the levels they’re at now. If we can get to the point where we can hunt bears—and we’re very close—we will have succeeded in recovering the grizzly bear in the Yellowstone population. That will be the ultimate measure of success.”  RMEF Bugle
 
This video begs the question: Did the videographer and producer actually visit the RMEF website or know anything about the present state of this organization? A quarter of RMEF new mission statement is about hunting and hunting heritage but where is that in this video?  They have hammered home this Hunting is Conservation and there is not a single person, rifle or gut pile in this video.  There is literally nothing in this video that references hunting.
 
 

 

 

 
“Having a passionate and effective base of lion hunters is key. In areas with well-managed populations, elk, deer and lions can all thrive. In Wyoming in 1995, hunters killed 105 cougars and 17,695 elk. In 2000, lion harvest rose to 186. It jumped to 286 in 2010. Meanwhile, Wyoming’s hunters killed 25,672 elk that year.” RMEF Bugle
 
One would also gather from this video that biodiversity protection is part and parcel of their agenda.  This too is problematic as their efforts have been focused on maximizing elk populations.  I say maximizing rather than optimizing purposely because their policies such as predator control and winter supplemental feeding actually are detrimental to bird species, beaver and others that are displaced when elk populations expand beyond historic levels.
 
The one honest part of the video was that they did not include wolves—not a single shot (no pun intended…okay maybe there was).  How it is possible to create an impression of the important critters in the Rocky Mountains and "unconsciously" miss the wolf?  This is absolutely consistent with their constant attitude about wolves not being wildlife and their desire for a wolf-free future.  I feel emboldened by this film, perhaps tomorrow I will have one made about me as a 25-year old with a full head of hair.  Yes, that's the ticket.

 

 

 

Posted by bob in Blog, Bring Back Wolves, Home Page Hot Topic, Uncategorized

1 Comment

Keep Reading →

Dec18

We Need to Address Wolf Myths and Hatred Head On–Stand with US

By Bob Ferris
 
There are some clever television commercials circulating of late that feature prankster cows taking steps to convince folks they should eat more chicken.  The inferred hope of these often belligerent bovines is that they will not be eaten, if people would just eat more fowl.  Setting aside the fact that the featured cows are dairy cows and not beef cattle, the ads remind me—more darkly—of the western livestock industry and their allies’ efforts to sink wolf recovery by directing public attention away from their own myriad sins by creating myths and legends about the impact of wolves.  In essence they are manufacturing wolf hatred.
 
The arguments raised by the livestock industry and their allies like Jim Beers and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation are generally of three types:
 
1) Wolves cause economic damage;
2) Wolves impact wildlife populations; and 
3) Wolves pose a threat to humans.
 
The interesting thing about these three claims is that all three of them could also be made about cattle and the livestock industry.   More importantly—the level of all three of these impacts for livestock are orders of magnitude above those posed by wolves.  So why do folks not grasp this? And why is there only limited public outcry?
 
Perhaps it is John Wayne’s fault because cowboy movies and the ranchers themselves have created a myth of rugged independence and self-made wealth that conveniently forgets about the Louisiana Purchase, the wars waged against Native Americans (and the subsequent cost of the Reservation system), the generosity of the Homestead Act, the obscene incentives given the railroads, the campaign against the wolf waged by the Biological Survey (precursor to the US Fish and Wildlife Service) and a whole host of other taxpayer financed programs that have materially made their “independence” and the current situation possible.
 
Setting all of this past economic, biological and human insult aside, we are still left with considerable ongoing impacts in all of these arenas and it is disingenuous of the anti-wolf forces to suggest otherwise.
 
Take the economics (please).  Cattlemen, particularly public lands grazers, cannot honestly make an argument about the cost to them of wolves without also looking at the approximately $120 million annual loss to the US Treasury that is associated with the public lands grazing programs in the West.  And that number does not take into account the difference between what they are paying and what they should pay for the public lands they treat as personal kingdoms or the considerable ecological costs associated with chronically overgrazed lands as well as the direct services provided them by USDA Wildlife Services in their jihad on predators.
 
The best and freshest instance of the above is that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife recently spent $77,000 to kill the Wedge Pack in northeastern Washington State.  They flew those helicopters and shot that complete pack to protect a single, recalcitrant public lands rancher who pays around $1000 a year to graze his cattle on a federal forest allotment.  On what planet is this considered justifiable or reasonable?  Thinking the best defense is a good offense, the rancher in question also has an attitude.  
 
And then there are the wildlife impacts…  Here I think the cattle industry should take a moment and remember the bison and wolves that flourished before influential ranchers cried for their virtual extermination in North America.  How dare they follow that history with pointing an accusatory finger at wolves on behalf of wildlife?  And then there are our current circumstances.  
 
Idaho seems home to a lot of hysteria and on a lot of fronts.  Of particular relevance is wolf hysteria.  Wolves ate all our elk.  Wolves ate all our deer and elk.  Wolves ate our homework.  The last one was hyperbole but it is in scale when you think that Idaho has roughly 600 wolves, 100,000 elk and 2.2 million cattle and yet folks claim vehemently that wolves are driving the system.  I would suggest that their attention is misdirected by rhetoric coming from the very industry that would rather you look at wolves than cattle and sheep.  Cattle compete directly with deer and elk, particularly during the season when deer and elk need to gain weight to get themselves through the winter.  Add to all this to the damage done to fishable waters by the big and indiscriminant hooves of millions of milling and thirsty cattle and you have some serious wildlife consequences.  
 
In fact, a few decades ago the National Wildlife Federation published a study called Grazing to Extinction.  In that work they made the defensible claim that roughly 25% of endangered species in the US at that time owed at least part of their endangerment to grazing—one in four imperiled species.  On their worse day wolves are not doing anything remotely approaching this.
 
And then there is the issue of human health and safety.  Anti-wolf forces claim that wolves will hide in trees near bus stops and prey on your children.  This rhetoric seems almost surreal given the actual numbers on the scoreboard.  During a 4 year period last decade, livestock killed 108 people in 4 states and this does not include people killed by vehicle and cattle interactions.  During this same time period, wild wolves in the lower 48 states killed no one.  
 
And perennial fibber and flabbergaster Jim Beers is making the rounds of livestock meetings and shovel brigade love fests hammering the “wolves carry disease” mantra never stopping once to look at the nearly complete overlap between many of these diseases such as brucellosis and Mad Cow Disease and their original vectors—livestock from Europe.  
 
In his nearly clinically paranoid fashion Mr. Beers catalogs a number of diseases (28) that potentially infect wolves along with a recounting of transmission mechanisms.  All these have a basis in fact, where he jumps off the sanity rails and employs the “Chick-fil-A” strategy is when he attempts to push disease transmission risk from wolves to the forefront of concerns.  This is specious on two counts.  
 

The first is simply one of scale, wolves are pinnacle predators and as such there will always be way fewer wolves than prey species.  And at this particularly point in time and for the foreseeable future the numbers of cattle, sheep, elk and deer vectors and disease reservoirs are at least three orders of magnitude greater than wolf populations will ever be.  More ungulates (cloven footed critters) mean more disease risk from those sectors.  For example, in Idaho right now there are 600 or so wolves, 100,000 elk and 2.2 million cattle—all potentially disease vectors or reservoirs.  How other than in the most illogical mind could the smallest by far group pose the most risk?  
 
Mr. Beers second mistake is likely an artifact of his age and the age of his educational grounding.  He became a wildlife biologist before population ecology, genetics, and biochemistry were regularly taught or required.  Had he been exposed to these sub-disciplines, he would realize that wolves carry diseases such as chronic wasting disease generally when they have consumed an animal infected with the disease.  In short they are a selective force against the disease.  For instance, if a wolf eats ten infected animals a year the end result is one infected wolf, but a total reduction of nine infected animals from the landscape.  This positive impact of wolves is supported by experience and modeling with mule deer and chronic wasting disease.
 
Of further note here is that the prevalence of these diseases correlates nicely with the overall density of these ungulates and with artificial density created by programs such as supplemental feeding endorsed by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.  Keeping deer and elk populations high and chronic overstocking of livestock leads to disease transmission.  
 
I am not a psychologist but it strikes me as edging towards some bizarre form of transference when someone like Mr. Beers continually channels their unfounded anger relating to being forced out of the US Fish and Wildlife Service more than a decade ago towards a species he has never worked with and knows relatively little about.   If he is really so angry at the federal government and wants nothing to do with his former agency, he could always refuse his government retirement checks.  (Question to the organizers of these gatherings—is this un-credentialed and discredited angry old man really the best you can do?)
 
Normally I would find this rhetoric and the clowns peddling it amusing on some level but my sense of humor evaporates and my tolerance for this ends abruptly when this translates into dead wolves and a trampling of logic and science.  When someone takes up a rifle, sets traps or considers poisoning wildlife because selfish, ignorant and politically driven yahoos gin up hatred, people of principle need to act and put an end to this foolishness.  
Action in my mind includes three logical courses:
 
1) Continued and enhanced protection for wolves in the lower 48 states.  This could be done under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) but would probably be more effective under free-standing legislation that dealt with permanently protecting the species and the ecological function they perform and requiring professional management where proven needs have been scientifically demonstrated (sign our petition here).
2) Public lands grazing reform.  We cannot for economic, ecological or climate threat prevention reasons continue to offer ecologically damaging, below cost grazing on our public lands.  
3) Wolf education.  Provisions under the ESA or some free-standing wolf legislation need to be created to deal with the wolf myths and fears (i.e., intellectual environment) purposely promulgated by anti-wolf forces.
 
We hope that members of our Cascadia community and beyond support us and will work with us to pursue these goals and others.  We simply cannot allow this type of rhetoric and unbridled hatred for wolves forwarded without response and action.
 

Posted by bob in Blog, Bring Back Wolves, California Wolves, Home Page Hot Topic, Northern Rockies Wolves, Oregon Wolves, Uncategorized, Washington Wolves

11 Comments

Keep Reading →

Dec04

David Allen’s Continued Attacks on Science and Wolves

David Allen of Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s recent letter to Bob Ream—chairman of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission—is a further example of Mr. Allen’s war on science and wolves.  Though craftily written, his continued evoking of “science” reminds me of the uber patriots we frequently see who scream “love of country” while at the same time refusing to pay taxes to support the very freedoms and benefits they enjoy.  Collectively they repeatedly demonstrate their dedicated fondness for a word they neither understand nor support. 

 

FWP commission chairman Bob Ream said he hopes wolves can ultimately be managed like mountains lions, a predator he said outnumbers wolves by four to five times and is responsible for just as much killing of game. He noted there is comparatively little opposition to hunting lions and little call to significantly increase hunting of that animal.
 
"There are heck of a lot of people who hate wolves or love wolves," Ream said. "We do take public input seriously. This is a tough issue. This is not easy. It has become so polarized." 
 
In the second line of the letter Mr. Allen asserts that the wolf hunts are “necessary.”  Not only that but implies by the use of the phrase “[a]s you know” that Dr. Ream has that understanding as well.  The above quote from Dr. Ream implies that the escalation of wolf control is driven more by public opinion than science—public opinion that Mr. Allen has been instrumental in influencing in the absence of supporting science.  (It is interesting that Mr. Allen’s missive was written less than a week after The Great Falls Tribune ran a story entitled A trophy season: Elk hunters enjoy record success along the Front)
 
Scientists predict that the loss of the collared wolves will have a big impact on both the park's research project and numerous other independent studies investigating a variety of issues, such as elk management and ecology. The collars collect data intended to help wildlife managers better understand wolf behavior, particularly the canids' effect on elk. And unless a wolf is wearing a collar, researchers say they can't be sure that it is an animal that uses the park. The killings are "very unfortunate, because of the harm it does to the research," says Bob Ream, a retired wolf biologist from the University of Montana, and chair of the state's Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission, which oversees the hunts. "I would like to think this was not done intentionally." Intentional or not, Smith notes that of the killed wolves that were known to have used the park, an estimated 70% were wearing collars.
 
Mr. Allen continues by saying that there is no science or rationale for a “no hunt” zone surrounding the Park.  Really?  Here again Mr. Allen needs to see what Dr. Ream is saying about this and should understand that “research” is another word for science.  In addition, this clearly demonstrates that Mr. Allen or his advisors might not want to know what science might actually have to say about the need to control wolves or not.  
 

Further, there is an authenticity factor here. Those who are “deep conservationists” have generally worked with scientists in some capacity and would therefore understand how important these study animals are and defend them.  In the abstract it is easy to take a “so what” attitude—as Mr. Allen has—about the work of scientists and not realize the effort that goes into capturing and collaring study animals.  I worked on deer myself and used to have nightmares about losing study animals and the implications that would have for my experimental design and my ability to even answer the scientific questions I was posing.
 
Mr. Allen’s letter underscores several things.  First, he does not understand or respect science and is driven much more by his transparent hatred of wolves.   Second, it exhibits a large measure of hypocrisy in his calling out of other groups using this for fundraising when he is doing exactly the same thing through a public letter on his blog.  And lastly, this once again underscores Mr. Allen’s role with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and how he is little qualified by background or standing to guide this organization.  
 
And, Mr. Allen, about your closing salutation: If your comments were submitted respectfully and with awareness of the players you would have addressed the chairman as Dr. Ream rather than Mr. Ream.  Bob has an earned PhD in science and should be recognized for that achievement.  

 

Posted by bob in Blog, Bring Back Wolves, Northern Rockies Wolves, Uncategorized

4 Comments

Keep Reading →

Nov09

The Rickety Molehill Elk Federation

By Bob Ferris

We have admittedly been a little hard on the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, but I am not sure that we feel any true guilt about it.   The feelings actually tend more towards sorrow and pity.  Sorrow in that a once prestigious and respected conservation organization has drifted towards the intellectual graveyard of a politically driven group with “elk” in their name.  And the pity comes from them not understanding the roots of their demise or a way out of this devastating vortex they now find themselves spinning within.  (Hint: It is not spending a lot of money on a glossy website redesign and hiring even more PR people with even less conservation grounding.)
 
Do you need examples?  The Montana Department of Fish and Wildlife is in the process of talking about managing elk to protect cattle from the bacterial disease brucellosis.  What?  Turns out hazing, separating, and killing bison that could be infected with the disease that causes abortions in cattle did not do the trick so now the ranchers—many of them public lands grazers—want the elk issue addressed.  Perhaps it is not enough that the American taxpayer already puts out $140 million dollars a year and incurs nearly three times that much in other economic and environmental damage including foregone grazing fees and wildlife damage on behalf of western cattle interests and now they want to reduce and cull elk?  The sad part of this is we see no real public posturing by RMEF on behalf of the very species they purport to protect.  Where are they arguing for the rights of wildlife—particularly to an agency (MDFW) funded in large part by wildlife interests—and standing up for the elk mentioned in their mission and name? (Hint: Advocating for supplemental feeding of elk is not a concrete action in this regard as feeding only concentrates elk which likely leads to even higher brucellosis infection rates.)
 
Perhaps—to give them the benefit of the doubt—they might be in tight and productive negotiations with the state and cattle ranchers and feel that any public statements would jeopardize their standing as honest brokers.  But that “benefit of the doubt” only goes so far because all of us in conservation have found ourselves in similar situations and have managed to simultaneously argue for our human and non-human constituencies and also participate productively and in the negotiations.  Perhaps this is just another case of the elk folks not knowing what is customary or allowable in these situations?
 
Other examples?  Sure. At the same time RMEF is pouring hundreds of thousands of donor dollars into wolf research in an effort to get to the “bottom” of the wolf issue and acting as interveners in partnership with the livestock industry, they are absolutely ignoring the issues of climate change and the impacts of grazing on the very species they purport to protect and advance.  And while Dale Earnhardt certainly has a following and his photoshopped picture wearing camouflage under his racing coveralls is mighty entertaining, Mr. Earnhardt is much more of a symbol for big, loud engines and the conspicuous fuel consumption that has driven the very climate change that is leading to depressed elk herds in various areas.  He is not the logical hero to drive the conservation of a species regardless of his national appeal.   
 
Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear & shall not understand, & another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more & of the outsiders' incomprehension.
 
By Fowler’s definition above, RMEF is an ironic organization with much of their membership viewing solely what they perceive as the good mission and performance of the organization.  In ignorance and with the outsider’s view they support and defend the group.  Then there are the rest of us who understand that supplemental feeding of elk, a wolf policy constructed of paranoia rather than science, substituting conservation credentials with star-power and deep alliances with the very economic interests that forestall balanced stewardship of our public lands and whose economic gains directly compete with the interests of wildlife are not at all consistent with elk conservation.  (Thus the irony.)
 
Another hint here about the RMEF catch phrase: Hunting is Conservation.  It is just not true.  Hunting is not always conservation regardless of how many times this mantra in repeated.  It is really more accurate to say conservation is conservation and many hunters are conservationists.  Shooting an elk with a rifle or bow does not automatically make you a conservationist anymore that killing one with a car or truck.  What makes someone a conservationist is materially engaging in conservation and embracing a conservation ethic like those espoused by Aldo Leopold, Ernest Thompson Seton or the Murie family.  Until RMEF takes steps to re-embrace its former ethic and reclaim its place as a legitimate conservation organization it will simply be as described in the title of this piece.
 
 

Posted by bob in Blog, Bring Back Wolves, Northern Rockies Wolves, Uncategorized

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

Aug08

Elk Foundation Shucks Sound Science

Jackson Hole News and Guide guest opinion by Bob Ferris

Actions and inactions always speak louder than words. So it is very telling that, in the two weeks or so since the Murie family released their eloquent letter urging the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to return to science and tone down their anti-wolf rhetoric, we have heard nothing from RMEF's scientific staff. The silence is profound.

Sure, we were treated to tea party darling Jim Beers' rant on the Skinny Moose blog and saw a remarkably sophomoric press release focusing on wolf killing tips from RMEF, but where are the elk group's biologists? And where, too, are the group's logical and natural defenders from the conservation and hunting communities?

The answers to the above breaks down to one word: Murie. Wildlife professionals of all stripes hold the Murie family and Aldo Leopold's family in very high regard. And as much as RMEF CEO David Allen and his supporters try to ignore or dismiss the significance of this letter -to those of us in the field of wildlife -Murie's epistle is very serious business indeed.

I suspect the casualness with which RMEF electronically ejected Olaus Murie from its website and organizational persona shocked many. It was like it reached into itself and pulled out its own spine and then acted like nothing of note transpired. In all honesty, it really had no response to Donald Murie's concerns about ignoring the science and waging a war on wolves, but it seemed so strikingly abrupt and callous. It clearly had the feel and taste of a sudden death.

In many ways it is like a divorce. Former Bugle editor David Stalling courted the Murie family to establish the award in the late 1990s. At the time, it seemed like a perfect romance: A well-respected conservation organization with a biodiversity mission and elk focus forms a relationship with the family of a legendary biodiversity proponent and acknowledged father of modern elk management. What could be better?

But we all know that people and organizations change. In the case of the elk foundation, midway through is relation ship with the Muries, it started on a pathway that has taken it away from its stated mission. Its return to the dated and biologically selfish model of single-species management is as perplexing to many as its aggressive campaign against wolves in the absence of supporting and conclusive science.

We all have dealt with divorce in our lives, and it is of ten sordid and tawdry. We ultimately end up picking sides, mainly in accordance with our original allegiances to bride or groom. Sitting on the fence rarely seems an option. If we look at RMEF as the groom in this equation, one thing it has failed to grasp fully is that we in the scientific and conservation communities as well as in geographic communities like Jackson Hole, who know and have been touched by the Muries, are die-hard friends of the bride.

Moreover, RMEF does little to improve its public image by doing nothing to police its scant public defenders' efforts to question the motivations and qualifications of the Murie family and also, interestingly, the Leopolds. It is hard for me to describe how fast my blood pressure rose the other day when someone on one of the blogs claimed that Dale Earnhardt had done more for conservation than Olaus Murie or Aldo Leopold. But these are the people attracted to the elk foundation's current messaging. They bring to mind a chorus of drinking buddies who after materially contributing to the break-up besmirch the bride's character.

In my career I have worked more closely with the Leopold family than the Muries, but my recent experiences with the children and grandchildren of Olaus, Mardy, Adolph and Louise have absolutely mirrored that of the Leopolds. They are true conservationists and exude an authenticity that cannot be spun, marketed or photoshopped. These iconic families ushered in a new, more holistic way of looking at ecosystem functions, such as predator-prey relations and the consequences of myopic management schemes like maximizing game populations.

The rich tapestry opened to those taking a biodiversity view cannot adequately be observed via a single-species lens. One prime example is the elk foundation's position on climate change written, by Val Geist. The one-paragraph position from 2004 acknowledges coming changes but views them as largely positive for elk. While the position stops somewhat short of being jubilant, the analysis is extremely limited in terms of factors and potential scenarios. In sharp contrast, scientists working for a consortium of 12 sportsman groups predict dire consequences for elk in the Rockies, including the spread of disease, loss of sagebrush habitat and outright extirpation from areas in their current range. And this latter view is being borne out by experience as we see localized drops in elk population being attributed to drought conditions and related impacts to food resources and timing.

Having worked hard to shore up the finances of several nonprofits during my career, I can certainly understand the board's reticence to make leadership changes when its coffers are expanding in a down economy, but the Murie letter and the community's reaction should be taken to heart. Boards must govern with courage and foresight ever mindful of the fiscal health and reputation of the organization in their care. With David Allen at the helm, RMEF has one of these bases covered, and that is simply not enough. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Bob Ferris is the executive director of Cascadia Wildlands (CascWild.org) and a member of the volunteer team that went to Fort Saint John, British Columbia, in January 1996 to make sure the second translocation of wolves into the U.S. Rockies was not derailed by the government shutdown.


Article Link

Related Links:

Muries Rebuke Elk Foundation over Anti-Wolf Remarks

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation–Needed: Less 10 Gallon Hats and More 10 Pound Brains

 

 

 

Posted by Josh in Bring Back Wolves, Campaign News Updates, Home Page Hot Topic, In The Media, News

2 Comments

Keep Reading →

Jul25

Elk Group Takes Hit from Muries, Others

July 25, 2012

Jackson Hole News and Guide by Todd Wilkinson

By now, you may have heard about the flap between the Murie family and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
 
Last week, foundation President David Allen said his organization was dropping Olaus J. Murie's name from one of its most coveted awards, an hon or given to prominent biologists whose life work has contributed to the scien tific understanding of elk.
 
The action came in response to a letter penned by Donald Murie, surviving son of Olaus and Mardy of Moose. Donald was troubled by re marks Allen's been making about wolves.
 
“Now, we find that your organization has declared all-out war against wolves; unreasonable, with no basis in science at all, wholly emotional, cruel and anathema to the entire Murie family,“ Donald wrote. “We cannot condone this. It is in total opposition to the findings of careful independent research by hundreds of scientists.“ He demanded that unless the foun dation changes its tenor, including calls for aggressive wolf control, it should cancel the Murie Award.
 
Allen opted to terminate the prize. More than a decade ago, long be fore Mr. Allen's arrival, the foundation received permission from the Murie family to put Olaus' name on a plaque. Murie is widely recognized as “the godfather of modern elk biology“ and an ecologist in the same league as Aldo Leopold.
 
It's an understatement to say it's a sad day. Over its 28-year history, the foundation has, nobly, been a leader in elk conservation, helping to protect 6 million acres of elk habitat.
 
Following decades of field research, Olaus Murie famously wrote, “Poison ing and trapping of so-called predators [wolves, coyotes, cougars, bears] … are evidences of human immaturity. The use of the term `vermin' as applied to so many wild creatures is a thoughtless criticism of nature's arrangement of producing varied life on this planet.“ Earlier this year, Allen, while speak ing at an anti-wolf rally in Oregon, re portedly made a statement published in the Bend Bulletin, that to keep wolf populations controlled, states “will have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens.“
 
Biologist and hunter Bob Ferris with Cascadia Wildlands brought Mr. Allen's comments to Donald Murie's attention.
 
He notes that the Rocky Moun tain Elk Foundation, under Allen, has backpedaled from its once-firm stance against the artificial feeding of public elk herds, a position supported by reams of scientific studies showing that feedgrounds (of the kind operated by the state of Wyoming and on the National Elk Refuge) are vectors for wildlife diseases, including brucellosis and perhaps all too soon chronic wasting disease.
 
The foundation board also has been reluctant to acknowledge that humancaused climate change poses a significant threat to wildlife due to changing habitat conditions. The organization is strikingly absent from “Beyond Seasons' End“ (BeyondSeasonsEnd. org), a report published by prominent hunting and fishing groups about the effects of climate change on wildlife persistence.
 
For example, a number of emerging studies suggest that drying conditions on crucial summer range in areas of Greater Yellowstone, Oregon and South Dakota are impacting elk nutrition and causing cow/ calf ratios to plummet in migratory elk herds. It can not be pinned on wolves.
 
Some very good people work for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, folks who understand, like Olaus J. Murie did, that natural systems are complex.
 
Hunter Bruce Smith, for decades the senior biologist on the National Elk Refuge and an original founder of the foundation's Jackson Hole chapter in the 1980s, is also befuddled.
 
“I agree with RMEF's mission to be an organization guided by science and to advance conservation while remaining apolitical,“ the “Where Elk Roam“ author says, “but in the last three years, that's changed. RMEF has strayed from being the group it once was.“
 
One prominent Murie Award winner resigned his membership over the foundation's positions. Also, read former foundation staffer David Stalling's critique of Allen online at TinyURL.com/c8fq42u.
 
“If their goal is to serve the best long-term interests of their membership, which means having healthy herds of elk and the ecosystems that support them, then RMEF ought to be standing behind those who champion competent science,“ says Steve Duerr, director of The Murie Center.
 
From Olaus and Adolph Murie to scientists who earned the Murie Award, Duerr says the honor gave the foundation credibility. But now, to wipe it from the records raises suspicions about the integrity of Allen as a conservation leader.
 
Todd Wilkinson's column appears here every week.

Posted by bob in Bring Back Wolves, Home Page Hot Topic, In The Media, Uncategorized

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

Jul19

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Changes Name of Conservation Prize Over Wolf Dispute

July 19, 2012

 
Associated Press
 
HELENA, Mont. — The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation removed the name of Olaus J. Murie from a conservation award after the family of the man known as the father of modern elk management objected to what they called an all-out war against wolves.
 
The demand came after the foundation backed removing federal protections for wolves, donated money to kill wolves that prey on livestock, and supported wolf hunts and trapping.
 
"The Murie name must never be associated with the unscientific and inhumane practices you are advancing," Donald Murie, youngest son of Olaus Murie, write in a letter to the foundation.
 
Foundation president David Allen said Wednesday the foundation would no longer call the honor the Olaus J. Murie award.
 
"We are going to accommodate the request because we are not going to change our position on wolf management," he said.
 
The foundation created the award in 1999 for individuals who demonstrate tremendous accomplishments in wildlife research and conservation.
 
It was named after Murie, a famed naturalist, author and wildlife biologist who conducted groundbreaking field work on many large North American mammals, including elk and caribou, in the early part of the 20th century.
 
Murie and his wife Margaret helped create the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and as a founding board member of the Wilderness Society, he fought a proposal in the 1940s to construct Glacier View Dam, which would have flooded more than 10,000 acres of Glacier National Park.
 
Donald Murie said Tuesday he only recently became aware of the foundation's position on wolf management and later read a quote attributed to Allen in an Oregon newspaper suggesting states would have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens to keep wolf populations in line.
 
Murie described the foundation's position on wolf management as an "all-out war against wolves" that would lead to their extermination.
 
Allen said the quote was taken out of context and the foundation has never promoted or suggested that wolves be exterminated.
 
"All I'm saying is if people don't get on board with using the approved state management plans that have been in place for almost a decade then the alternatives down the road are really unattractive," he said. "They have to stop managing wildlife with personal emotion, and use the science."
 
Several other conservation groups have challenged the foundation's position, including Eugene, Ore.-based Cascadia Wildlands. Director Bob Ferris, who communicated with the Murie family about drafting the letter, said they were sending a message to the foundation that it should base their positions on science.
 
"(Olaus) Murie, Aldo Leopold and a handful of other pioneers were the first proponents of biodiversity and preservation," Ferris said. "For the family, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation's position just drove them crazy."
 

Posted by bob in Home Page Hot Topic, In The Media

2 Comments

Keep Reading →

we like it wild. Follow us Facebook Twiter RSS