Going off the rails with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
A once-proud conservation organization seems to be turning its back on science and common sense.
Gray wolves have a way of igniting fierce debates. Working to promote wolf recovery in Wallowa County, we here at Oregon Wild are used to that. However, even the most jaded Oregon Wild staffer wasn’t quite prepared for some outlandish comments made by Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) President David Allen last week.
They came in an article on wolf conflicts in Oregon that ran in several Oregon newspapers and other media outlets:
More wolves will simply mean a need for more management, said David Allen, president and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, a nationwide group with 185,000 members. To keep wolf populations controlled, he said, states will have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens.
"Natural balance is a Walt Disney movie," he said. "It isn't real."
Pardon my bluntness, but under Allen the RMEF has gone off the rails.
Allen, who’s career includes stints in marketing for
Wrangler blue jeans and NASCAR, took the wheel at RMEF in 2007. The organization was once a respected voice
for wildlife and public lands conservation, with a reputation for scientific integrity. Historically, they took no
position in battles over wolves, grizzlies, wolverine and other keystone
species that are unpopular in some political circles. However, under his leadership that has
changed. RMEF seems to believe that for species
like wolves, which some in the hunting community do not like, science is irrelevant
and extinction is ok.
That Allen disregards predator-prey relationships outlined in Biology 101 textbooks around the country, and views
"natural balance" as a myth, isn't the worst of it.
Last year, RMEF turned their backs on decades of habitat
conservation and endorsed reckless legislation in Congress that would have opened up over 60 million acres of pristine
roadless lands to oil and gas development, logging, and mining. Decades of research has show that roadless areas are incredibly important for elk, and Allen’s decision sparked an intense backlash by RMEF
members. Faced with an internal revolt,
the organization later backtracked.

Oregon Wild and RMEF share a common heritage. Back in 1974, elk hunters concerned about the
destruction of roadless areas were among Oregon Wild’s founders. Even today, elk hunters are well-represented
within Oregon Wild’s membership and staff.
That is why we find the positions being taken by RMEF, including
the gassing of wolf pups in the den, to be so astounding.
The overwhelming majority of hunters support conservation, and wish to see Americas wildlife heritage
preserved. It is too bad that Allen
seems to ignore those moderate voices, focusing instead on the extreme few who view
wolf recovery as a bad thing, but the destruction of prime elk habitat by oil
and gas development as progress.
rmef and wolves
Agenda 21 - really?
Wolves were reintroduced not as some conspiracy of the Untied Nations, but because the American public (through the Endangered Species Act) demanded that our nation do something about our history of exterminating entire species from our landscape.
Wolves and elk (not to mention all of the other species that roam our wildlands) lived harmoniously for millenia before humans began exterminating both species. We had to enact laws to prevent more serious population declines of both species and we are lucky that we did. RMEF used to be a partner in sound wildlife conservation. Now, they seem more interested in fomenting the fear of the big, bad, wolf and in profiting off of a cultural divide that pits rural America against the big, bad government than in protecting wildlife and the habitat (like roadless areas) that they thrive in.
Wolves
The facts
Conspiracy or saving a species?
Just got around to approving your comments on the website. We have to approve everything that gets posted because many folks tend to take these issues personally and then post personal insults or inappropriate material that we try and keep off our website.
I would respond to your post point by point, but it is clear that you don't have an interest in a dialogue that involves evidence for your opinion. So, I'll just agree with you and say that everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not everyone is entitled to their own set of facts.

