December 1, 2022

CSF, RMEF Join Forces to Advocate for Sportsmen and Women

*Editor’s Note* – Perhaps the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation should be a bit more choosy on who they decide to jump into bed with, or maybe their real agenda mirrors that of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation.

Consider the connecting of dots. Congress voted to take Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson money away from outdoor sportsmen and give it to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWS). The AFWA uses that money to fund programs designed to ultimately end hunting, trapping and fishing. They promote Environmentalism disguised as conservation.

Recently the AFWA crafted what they are calling a “Blue Ribbon Panel” to find new ways of funding new fish and wildlife management. Other than the fact that the majority of this Panel are Environmentalists, doing all that they can to end hunting, trapping and fishing (whether they realize it or not), one has to wonder, where the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation has representation on this panel, whether folks like the RMEF, and others, actually understand that the AFWA uses the money they steal from the sportsmen to create programs to end hunting, trapping and fishing? This is really a no-brainer. Why would anyone jump into bed with an organization that works to end hunting, trapping and fishing unless they agree with and support the agenda? Or are they that ignorant of facts?

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

PITTSBURGH, Pa.—The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) signed a partnership that fosters greater cooperation to jointly advance the outdoor traditions of hunting, angling, recreational shooting and trapping at the state and national levels of government, where many of the decisions impacting such activities are made.

“Given that CSF and RMEF have long collaborated to advance the interests of America’s sportsmen and women, this formal partnership is a natural fit. Working side-by-side, both organizations are well positioned to protect our hunting heritage in elk country and throughout the nation,” said Jeff Crane, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation President.

“It’s evident that now, more than ever, we need to educate and engage sportsmen and women as well as our legislators about the vital habitat, management and conservation issues and challenges that face our wildlife,” said David Allen, RMEF President and CEO. “Working even closer with CSF helps us do exactly that.”

“RMEF has a long history of successfully working shoulder-to-shoulder with the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation,” said Blake Henning, RMEF Vice President of Lands and Conservation. “This agreement strengthens our resolve and intentions to work together to be more productive and do a greater good on behalf of conservation, wildlife, sportsmen and women.”

The ability to effectively advocate for natural resource and wildlife management policies as well as traditional outdoor interests is dependent on the ability to organize supporters on multiple fronts.

The CSF States Program manages the National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses which currently includes more than 2,000 state legislators in 48 bipartisan sportsmen’s caucuses across the nation. It also works with 33 members of the Governors Sportsmen’s Caucus as a link between lawmakers and the state and federal fish and wildlife management agencies, the outdoor industry and conservation organizations.

RMEF has nearly 220,000 members, including 11,000 volunteers, who take part in fundraising and on-the-ground conservation and hunting heritage outreach projects across more than 500 chapters in 49 different states.

The new agreement provides an enhanced opportunity to combine CSF’s conservation policy knowledge and network with RMEF’s membership and chapters to effectively guide policy in a way that encourages the participation of sportsmen and women in the legislative process. It also strengthens efforts to make a greater positive collective impact on outdoor heritage, wildlife management, public access, public and private land conservation, and hunter recruitment and retention.


Hiding Truth About Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Field and Stream posts a perfect example of why ignorant people can never make a real informed choice. The voter should be chastised because they insist on remaining ignorant (lazy because they will not look further than what the Media spoon feeds them). The Media, and the associations they do the bidding for, either ignorantly or intentionally leave out the most important of information – I suppose that way it’s easier to deceive the public.

According to the article, a “Blue Ribbon Panel” (made up mostly of Environmentalists), funded by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), is seeking new ways to fund new wildlife management. AFWA says the states can’t afford to do an adequate job anymore and need alternative funding. I call BS!

While the F&S article, ignorantly extols the efforts of hunters and fishermen to “tax themselves” to save wildlife, the writer fails miserably in explaining where the AFWA gets their funding to operate. The “tax themselves” excise money comes from two Congressional acts – Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson. The AFWA, convinced Congress, through lies and deceit, to give them some of that PR/DJ money. In other words they stole it away from the state fish and wildlife agencies, who now are said to not have enough money, so AFWA could perpetuate their pet projects. And what sportsmen, who pay that excise tax money, don’t realize is that the AFWA used the hunter’s and fisherman’s tax money to fund and promote anti-hunting and anti-fishing programs. None of this should make any sense nor should it be permitted.

The real goal of AWFA is to put a stop to hunting, trapping and fishing and put their efforts into promoting Environmentalism and animal rights, while at the same time building up retirement pensions on the backs of the sportsmen.

Shame on F&S for doing such romantic journalism and not digging deeper to discover the truth….or maybe they didn’t want to know the truth…or maybe they did and wanted to make sure readers didn’t discover the truth.