brocksw
Well-known member
Thank you for providing some context.
Fishery vs. wildlife
- Thread starter DFS
- Start date
Point Creep
Well-known member
Even lead poisoning?
YukonGold
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2022
- Messages
- 236
I'm inclined to think that the sideboards local staff have had to work within have been the problem--like the long season, opportunity over quality, etc. You have a mix of staff who either agree or disagree with those sideboards, and their ability to work outside them has been limited by leadership as well as culture. Opportunity over quality and uncomplicated regulations have been the rules to live by, and we got away with that for a long time because there was more accessible land and fewer hunters on the landscape.
Now that has changed and FWP has been slow to respond, I agree. The bios do put forward proposals to address hunter crowding and population issues. Used to be their proposals easily made it to the commission for consideration, and more often than not it was public comment that swayed the commission to deny them--the same people many of us here struggle against, who don't see a problem and don't want their opportunity taken away. In that case, the system was broken, not necessarily the efforts of local staff.
Is that system changing now? IF this administration (leadership or commission, whichever) is able to make changes to the sideboards this time around--specifically for mule deer--they'll absolutely deserve credit (as well as the public, whose outcry got it all started). I bet many of the bios will be happy about that too. But you still have the problem of wildlife being a public resource with countless opinions from vocal publics on how it should be managed, biology be damned. Which public will this administration listen to?
And how does taking away biologists' ability to adjust quotas, or even get their proposals in front of the commission, help anything?
YukonGold
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2022
- Messages
- 236
I see your point, and yes, we have a TON of power to influence populations through hunting (when animals are accessible). FWP certainly is to blame in situations where hunting caused severe declines in populations. But those can be changed, populations can rebound with changes in harvest, sometimes quickly.
Doesn't change the importance of habitat to long-term persistence of healthy wildlife populations across the landscape. There are many places where hunting is so limited it's not an issue, yet populations still struggle. Difficult for FWP to change those situations.
Point Creep
Well-known member
Did we just visit on the phone for an hour?
I would bet the increase of leased acres has a lot to do with the quality of the hunting on public drastically decreasing.
As far as elk populations go, more elk doesn’t always translate to better hunting. In a lot of areas, I bet the elk hunting was better in 2005 than it is today despite having more elk in the state now. When I was going to college in 2007-2008, I archery hunted general units in western MT and I found it easier to stay on elk day after day than I do now when I hunt districts in central MT that are 600% over objective.
YukonGold
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2022
- Messages
- 236
...?? no?
Point Creep
Well-known member
Would do anything to roll back the clock to elk hunting in 2005. Way more elk in Western MT on public back then.
Take it as a compliment.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
This^.
For every Montanan that in the past shot a 180 MD buck opportunistically while on an elk hunt, there are 2 who's tradition is shooting that forkie on Thanksgiving while hunting with family and to fill the freezer. The last few months I have heard Big Fin say in podcasts, criticizing other state systems and points, that in Montana he gets to buy a tag every year. I get it. It is hard to find a compromise between opportunity and quality. It seems pretty clear that even if total tags issued remains pretty consistent, more people are hunting harder. FWP has to try to make everyone happy. I am hoping the public exposure of the group's MD suggestions will make the average hunter more aware. Also, looking at draw odds, my quick math shows 40-50% of the Rs apply for a LE tag (26,748 for quota of 3459). The "idea" of LE isn't causing the push back. It the fact they when they don't draw and can't buy that general tag or they suddenly have fewer places to go.
There are a few people on this board who are going to blame FWP regardless. FWP could do EVERYTHING they ask for and they will still complain. I can see it already. FWP could go LE on every unit and in 3 yrs when they see a nice buck on public they will complain about not being able to get a tag because FWP is catering to NRs.
GG is doing his best to manage the state unilaterally (common theme in other states too, R and D). SB 442 and how that played out should show the voter everything they need to see. But people will not change their vote.
Point Creep
Well-known member
Funny you mention a "compromise between opportunity and quality" then use an example of killing a forky and big deer - both during November.
There's a difference in blaming FWP for everything and blaming them for doing nothing. There's also a difference in being able to buy a deer tag every year, and then being allowed to use that tag for 4 months, including all of November and half of December when deer are rutting on winter range. Recognition of epic monumental failures should not be so difficult to understand.
There's a difference in blaming FWP for everything and blaming them for doing nothing. There's also a difference in being able to buy a deer tag every year, and then being allowed to use that tag for 4 months, including all of November and half of December when deer are rutting on winter range. Recognition of epic monumental failures should not be so difficult to understand.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
The example was extreme to make a point. I recognize there are is a differences and change is necessary. What I'm saying is that the majority of Montana hunters are driving the FWP decisions. Changes are hard without a shift in majority view. I think that shift may be slowly happening. But FWP literally just sent the survey out last year. Maybe we need another survey done by a more independent group?
I can't think of many jobs worse than being a FWP biologist. You have very little autonomy in the decisions and are managing to a goal of more forkies (and in CWD zones this isn't even the case). That is probably another reason no one sticks around long. Your job is to go to public meetings and get yelled at and when you try to make changes the big boss says STFU. Changing some of those breaks units to LE seems a bigger accomplishment than we give the Bio credit for.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I give that Bio a lot of credit. Was it the right decision, almost certainly for the units involved. The effect on the other OTC units make it cloudy if it was the right way to go for the state. Only time will tell.
Last edited:
brocksw
Well-known member
I'm totally thinking out loud here, but is there any thought that the commissions deserve a significant role in this blame game? I don't mean that so much as an accusation to any particular commission or commission members, but more so as a long term side effect of a (or multiple) non-biological body of folks making decisions based on sometimes selfish social pressure and whims of the public. My understanding of MT FWP decision making is that it's much different than say ND.
In ND, the bios/staff/leadership make the decisions. They use public input as a parameter in that formula certainly, but mostly it's population counts, harvest stats, buck:doe/doe:fawn ratios, nesting numbers, actual wildlife variables that drive fundamental decision making. They put some of this in the proposed annual proclamation, Governor signs, boom, season setting is pretty much complete. Some things, like Bighorns and Pronghorn, they wait until the last possible minute to allocate licenses.
My observation and perception of MT FWP is that it doesn't necessarily matter what the bios or department staff have to say. Ultimately, the commission is the trigger man so to speak. Additionally, the Governor exercises a lot of political will power over the department (much different than ND), and of course the commission.
Both still suffer from some of the legislative nonsense, though we fair better than MT in that regard too. Though in my opinion that's because we don't have the elk numbers. But that stuff is coming too...
I guess my point is that the intent of this thread seems to be trying to decipher who or what is to blame for this downward trend in MT, or the perception there of. There are some broad statements or insinuations about which "party" can fix it, or which is to blame. Other broad statements assigning blame to the "FWP" with no real clarity on if it's actually the FWP or if it's the FWP just carrying out the orders of the commission, the legislature, or the Governor. In the latter, the FWP is just the middle man caught in the crossfire.
I don't know, maybe I'm not understanding the big picture well enough to be clear. Something just doesn't seem right in MT, and I have a hard time thinking there are many professional folks at the FWP that are to blame when everything surrounding them is political mess that's just ripe for problems.
You have only ONE professional body when it comes to state wildlife management in Montana. But 1 social body (the public) and 3 political bodies (Gov, Commission, Legislature) who are actually the ones who make the decisions. That doesn't make any sense to me...
Just my 2 pennies.
In ND, the bios/staff/leadership make the decisions. They use public input as a parameter in that formula certainly, but mostly it's population counts, harvest stats, buck:doe/doe:fawn ratios, nesting numbers, actual wildlife variables that drive fundamental decision making. They put some of this in the proposed annual proclamation, Governor signs, boom, season setting is pretty much complete. Some things, like Bighorns and Pronghorn, they wait until the last possible minute to allocate licenses.
My observation and perception of MT FWP is that it doesn't necessarily matter what the bios or department staff have to say. Ultimately, the commission is the trigger man so to speak. Additionally, the Governor exercises a lot of political will power over the department (much different than ND), and of course the commission.
Both still suffer from some of the legislative nonsense, though we fair better than MT in that regard too. Though in my opinion that's because we don't have the elk numbers. But that stuff is coming too...
I guess my point is that the intent of this thread seems to be trying to decipher who or what is to blame for this downward trend in MT, or the perception there of. There are some broad statements or insinuations about which "party" can fix it, or which is to blame. Other broad statements assigning blame to the "FWP" with no real clarity on if it's actually the FWP or if it's the FWP just carrying out the orders of the commission, the legislature, or the Governor. In the latter, the FWP is just the middle man caught in the crossfire.
I don't know, maybe I'm not understanding the big picture well enough to be clear. Something just doesn't seem right in MT, and I have a hard time thinking there are many professional folks at the FWP that are to blame when everything surrounding them is political mess that's just ripe for problems.
You have only ONE professional body when it comes to state wildlife management in Montana. But 1 social body (the public) and 3 political bodies (Gov, Commission, Legislature) who are actually the ones who make the decisions. That doesn't make any sense to me...
Just my 2 pennies.
Let's not cloud the issue with facts
BuzzH
Well-known member
IMO/E, the commissioners should just be handed a rubber stamp for the most part when they're sworn in.
They either do the bidding of the Department or the Governor's office.
I agree that one of the big problems is that many times commissioners do not understand the issues. It would be like me serving on the board of a banking institutions with no education and no experience in that line of work.
I don't necessarily blame the commissioners, they just don't know what they don't know. So that pretty well forces them to either take direction or guidance from the Department or Governor's office. Many times, those are also one-in-the-same. The Governor has control over his appointed Director, the appointed Commissioners, and to some degree even the legislature.
In one of these threads, someone said they were "surprised how political it got", well, news flash in many cases about all the decisions boil down to is a political agenda. Sure, on small issues a biologist might be to adjust quotas slightly, but big decisions are almost always political.
The FWP upper Management are in a tight spot as well, if they value their jobs, they do as they're instructed. I think about all a person could hope for in a Director, is someone with the intestinal fortitude to sway the Governor to support their staff or inform the Governor in better decisions. I think most of the time the Governors really don't care what proper management looks like, empowering their departments, etc. They care about pandering to their high dollar donors, their base, and their reelection chances wayyy more than they care about employees, wildlife, habitat, hunters, fishermen, etc. (in general and not all). It's as sad as it is true, but them's just the facts.
The Governor's office's want all the control to make decisions, but they don't want the responsibility for the poor decisions they make.
Finally, it's pretty unfair to expect a biologist with bills to pay, kids, etc. to take a position and push back against the machine, they're bound to get ground up and tossed in the scrap heap.
Biologists need a department and upper management that has their back, the only thing the current leadership in FWP seems to do about their backs, is stab them squarely in same.
They either do the bidding of the Department or the Governor's office.
I agree that one of the big problems is that many times commissioners do not understand the issues. It would be like me serving on the board of a banking institutions with no education and no experience in that line of work.
I don't necessarily blame the commissioners, they just don't know what they don't know. So that pretty well forces them to either take direction or guidance from the Department or Governor's office. Many times, those are also one-in-the-same. The Governor has control over his appointed Director, the appointed Commissioners, and to some degree even the legislature.
In one of these threads, someone said they were "surprised how political it got", well, news flash in many cases about all the decisions boil down to is a political agenda. Sure, on small issues a biologist might be to adjust quotas slightly, but big decisions are almost always political.
The FWP upper Management are in a tight spot as well, if they value their jobs, they do as they're instructed. I think about all a person could hope for in a Director, is someone with the intestinal fortitude to sway the Governor to support their staff or inform the Governor in better decisions. I think most of the time the Governors really don't care what proper management looks like, empowering their departments, etc. They care about pandering to their high dollar donors, their base, and their reelection chances wayyy more than they care about employees, wildlife, habitat, hunters, fishermen, etc. (in general and not all). It's as sad as it is true, but them's just the facts.
The Governor's office's want all the control to make decisions, but they don't want the responsibility for the poor decisions they make.
Finally, it's pretty unfair to expect a biologist with bills to pay, kids, etc. to take a position and push back against the machine, they're bound to get ground up and tossed in the scrap heap.
Biologists need a department and upper management that has their back, the only thing the current leadership in FWP seems to do about their backs, is stab them squarely in same.
brocksw
Well-known member
Some very good points and perspectives in there. It’s a big issue, with lots of nuance.
Carnage2011
Well-known member
stick to NV. You obviously don’t understand the numbers in MT…Let's not cloud the issue with facts
Elky Welky
Well-known member
I'd even argue that it isn't their job to take a position, but simply to inform. With so many different interests at stake, biologists can only help shape the conversation by explaining the potential consequences of any of the different approaches. Not only is it wise for them to stay neutral, it is necessary.
Personally, I like that our citizen commissioners don't come with any specific pedigree. The legislature tried to make a certain number of them come from different industries, etc., but that comes with its own batch of headaches: how much should we privilege agriculture/guides&outfitters/hunters/industry professionals, etc.? That becomes a dangerous problem.
Flynarrow
Well-known member
Dang I wanted to stay out of this.....But.......
The Governor picked the past and current FWP Director as well as the Commission. The Governor tries to stay removed but isnt. He is the responsible party. The current bloodletting in the Dept started with his appointed Directors. The centralization of on-the-ground decisions started with these Directors.
The Commission was also wholly appointed by this Governor. The sole standing Commissioner (and has a science background) appointed by the previous Governor was ignored by other Commissioners until he retired. No regular sportsmen or person of Science background remains on the Commission. However, outfitters and large landowners are well represented. The public process for Commission meetings is now routinely short circuited.
Biologists have their hands tied and are silenced when they see their supervisors terminated. Now even their routine tasks are being questioned and have to be approved at the Directors office. Who needs biologists when they are in abundance in every bar and then show up at meetings to expound on their knowledge?
And then the all knowing Legislature doesn't hesitate to assume the task of managing the state's wildlife and fish. People stand to urge that biological, season setting, and other management tasks should be left to the Dept but the Legislature rarely listens. The Dept can only operate within the sideboards that the Legislature allows.
And then you wonder why Montana has the problems we do.
The Governor picked the past and current FWP Director as well as the Commission. The Governor tries to stay removed but isnt. He is the responsible party. The current bloodletting in the Dept started with his appointed Directors. The centralization of on-the-ground decisions started with these Directors.
The Commission was also wholly appointed by this Governor. The sole standing Commissioner (and has a science background) appointed by the previous Governor was ignored by other Commissioners until he retired. No regular sportsmen or person of Science background remains on the Commission. However, outfitters and large landowners are well represented. The public process for Commission meetings is now routinely short circuited.
Biologists have their hands tied and are silenced when they see their supervisors terminated. Now even their routine tasks are being questioned and have to be approved at the Directors office. Who needs biologists when they are in abundance in every bar and then show up at meetings to expound on their knowledge?
And then the all knowing Legislature doesn't hesitate to assume the task of managing the state's wildlife and fish. People stand to urge that biological, season setting, and other management tasks should be left to the Dept but the Legislature rarely listens. The Dept can only operate within the sideboards that the Legislature allows.
And then you wonder why Montana has the problems we do.
Similar threads
