Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

Fish, Wildlife and Parks reorganizing

ELKCHSR

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
13,765
Location
Montana
Restructuring is good as long as it consolidates and eliminates waste...

With Bammy in office, it looks like a great time for Gov entities to beef up their staffs while requiring business to downsize in their resturcturing

Some will argue this is state and its the Feds who are dictating to busines...

My opinion is their "ALL" government with the same agenda, no matter what layer, position, title, entity, affiliation...


Fish, Wildlife and Parks reorganizing


The Associated Press

HELENA - The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is restructuring and is in the market for three managers.

The reorganization is part of an effort to "get us set up for the future," said Director Joe Maurier, who took office six months ago.

The new structure includes a freshly minted Division of Fish and Wildlife, for which an $82,524-a-year chief is being sought. That arm of Fish, Wildlife and Parks will consolidate some long-standing divisions, including fisheries, wildlife, enforcement and communication/education, and encompass a new strategic planning unit involving staff that was widely dispersed previously.

Maurier said in a phone interview that he is "moving pieces around to be better aligned" and "nobody lost a job," although some responsibilities are shifting.

Fish, Wildlife and Parks is seeking a deputy director at $85,508. That post has been held by Chris Smith, who Maurier said is moving to special projects that include work on a new Helena wildlife center.

The department also is preparing to hire an assistant parks administrator at a salary of $49,468 to $71,602. The administrator will succeed Chas Van Genderen, who previously held the job and is now the parks chief, the post Maurier held before Gov. Brian Schweitzer named him director of Fish, Wildlife and Parks in November. The Montana Senate confirmed the appointment in April.

The reorganization will not change the personnel head count in Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Maurier said. The department has the equivalent of 693 full-time employees, 197 of them seasonal or temporary.

Maurier said he expects internal and external candidates for the administrative jobs.

"Nationwide, recruitment is not great for Montana only because for comparable jobs our wages are a little bit lower," he said. "But the quality of life tends to be higher. It's a question of balance, for somebody coming in."

Maurier presented the reorganization to the state Environmental Quality Council on Thursday.

Committee member Sen. Jim Keane, D-Butte, said Friday that he was impressed. Problems with the old structure included too much uncertainty about responsibility for certain functions within Fish, Wildlife and Parks, he said.

"It's the old story of 'We've always done it this way, let's continue to do it this way,'" Keane said. "He (Maurier) brought a fresh look."

Senate Fish and Game Committee Chairman Greg Barkus, who from 1989-93 served on the state commission that oversees Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said Friday that he had been unaware of the changes in the department.

In a poke at the sensitive topic of property acquisitions by Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Kalispell Republican added that consolidating the fisheries and the wildlife divisions "probably makes sense because they've kind of gotten away from management of fish and wildlife and gotten into focusing more on land ownership."
 
.........My opinion is their "ALL" government with the same agenda, no matter what layer, position, title, entity, affiliation...

Chsr:

What agenda would you be referring to in your opinion?

I don't know any guys in the Parks division, and I know some in the fisheries division. I think I know most of them in the wildlife division, and they are some of the smartest and most dedicated biologists I know.

And, they get paid a very small portion of what they would make if they went somewhere else. Given the low pay and the headaches they put up with, I would put them in the class of dedicated individuals.

There are some people in headquarters that I would not throw in the same category of smart and dedicated, but for the most part, the regional guys and the field guys are as good as we could ask for.

Like you said, just an opinion.
 
What agenda would you be referring to in your opinion?

Like you said, just an opinion.

Guys in the field aren't necessarily in the operations side of adding/subtracting from the work force or able to further agendas

Matter of fact, I've heard on this board for years that their 'opinions' don't count for squat

I'm betting the people that were in on the decision of adding three "NEW" overhead to the doles could have cut 'waste' (costs) in other areas to compensate for the new $$$ being added to the budgets

Generally cuts would be made by dumping field staff, adding to an already overloaded situation. What really needs to be cut is all the red tape government entities in general create to justify unneeded jobs

I'd bet there's not a governmental body in this country that couldn't tighten its belt a little, like everyone else in this country is forced to do

Bigger isn't always better and when it comes to governmental bodies, this couldn't be more true...

It's entertaining to watch our governmental employees beating on private enterprise one minute then the next ask for more $$$ to hire more people to do less work...

I'd also bet any one on this board who runs their own company wouldn't put up with this malarkey for one second, but will turn a blind eye to our public service employees who think they are fully justified in such behavior
 
Not sure how you create 3 "new" jobs when the very article posted says,

"The reorganization will not change the personnel head count in Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Maurier said. The department has the equivalent of 693 full-time employees, 197 of them seasonal or temporary.

It seems to make perfect sense to me, as I've always felt that having only one person in charge of the FISH, WILDLIFE, and PARKS would be a huge job.

I think things will run more efficiently, and effectively, when the Fish and Wildlife division is seperate from the Parks division. I'd say with the new structure more justice will be done to the job of managing the parks, and more to the job of managing the fish and wildlife. Two entirely different sets of problems and management needs.

I also agree with Fin that MOST of the field biologists are pretty smart, and definately not over-paid.
 
Yawn......

Think what you want Buzz....

Still can't hide from the truth...

I also agree with Fin that MOST of the field biologists are pretty smart, and definately not over-paid

Guys in the field aren't necessarily in the operations side of adding/subtracting from the work force or able to further agendas

Matter of fact, I've heard on this board for years that their 'opinions' don't count for squat

So whats your point except to notch up another post...
 
Cheese,

My point is/was two-fold.

1. It makes sense to seperate the parks division from the wildlife and fish division of the Montana FWP. Seems like a good waste of time for a wildlife manager to be worrying about boat ramps, out-houses, and flat spots to park motor homes in the state parks when they should be worrying about wildlife related issues. Like-wise, a fish stocking schedule probably isnt something that a parks manager in charge of building camping sites at a state park should be worrying about. Thats why I think this new idea makes complete sense, hiring a parks manager to manage parks and a wildlife manager to manage wildlife. I wouldnt hire a heart surgeon to do dental work.

2. The new idea did not "create" any additional positions as the total number of FWP employees has not increased. Like the article CLEARLY stated, it just prioritized

As to your post, you'll have to explain what you mean. All I get out of it is your usual, "I hate everyone that works for any government agency" non-sense.
 
LOL Buzz...

Read into, twist, and justify it all you want...

You usually do and will any way...

It is what it is and no amount of brow beating will change the facts, nor will it change my opinions or keep me from posting them...
 
I would say good management practices as long as the overall budget is lower than it was a year ago. Government employees can be the best and brightest but in reality the dollars spent do nothing to create a product or to improve the economy. California is $17 billion in the hole and they hired 50000 new government employees last year. That would be bad management practices. We are in trouble as a country and as individuals in this collapsed economy and we need all parties to help by cutting costs out of the system for the sake of the future generations. New spending by government departments does not stimulate anything but debt. JMO.
 
I would say good management practices as long as the overall budget is lower than it was a year ago.

Ringer, our FW&P's department always brings in more money than the legislature allows it to spend. We have surplus money. The legislature restricts them from spending it on more habitat flight surveys, etc. They also try every session to get their hands on the money for the general fund. The revenue brought in by the sales of tags is to be spent in this dept. Really grips many legislators.
 
AZ is the same way where the department is free standing and does not report to the legislature. Our politicians try to get to the money that is dedicated every year and they always fail because of the stink from sportsmen. Like social security when they were just going to borrow a little taste then sat down and ate the whole thing. Keep politicians out of our G&F.
 
Sorry, you misunderstood me. Our FW&Ps makes enough money to be self reliant, but in know way are free from the legislature. If they cut budgets across the boards. The Dept. is cut also. Doesn't make sense. Also our legislature has it in for the Dept. They're always trying to control the DFW&Ps by making laws. This last year was especially bad.
 
Back
Top