FWP Wildlife Chief Being Reassigned

[brocksw]

Identity Politics 101

 

[marshman]

How were they supposed to do that exactly with a Legislature that was openly hostile towards the agency during that period? They’ve played the long game to get us exactly to this point. The thing that kept this shitshow from happening sooner was a Democratic Gov who wielded the veto.

Many people warned that this would be the outcome if GG was elected, but as per usual no one seemed to care then. Lots of people on this very forum were very clear that hunting isn’t among their top 10 issues at election time. If that’s truly the case and people no longer care enough about hunting to make it a priority, we just won’t continue to have it. @BuzzH says it best…you get what you vote for.

You have this figured out correctly for sure. People sure do forget quickly don't they.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

When a candidate with lots of baggage and flaws like GG wins an election it is more of an indictment of the other candidate/party than it is an endorsement of the winner. For the loser it is a time to take a good look in the mirror and fix the dark spots on your image. Calling the voting public stupid indicates a party that is unwilling to address their flaws and mistakes.
On the other hand the winners too often view the results and a full fledged endorsement and push their bad ideas full steam ahead and then wonder why the paddle wheel falls apart in the current.
One of the flaws in a two party system.

I agree with the sentiment…kinda

We do have primaries though so it’s not like there weren’t other choices, I feel pretty comfortable calling the people in my home CO district stupid. They elected a moron, the dem was better, the incumbent Republican was better, I voted for both “other” options.

Right now the electorate on both sides is infatuated with crazy. How is “I’m nuts” an actual platform these days.

Beating up a reporter should have been an instant disqualification from office.

If you vote with a party pick a better candidate for your party.

 

[Nameless Range]

One of the problems here is Governors wield too much power. When people vote for an executive, they are balancing all kinds of hopes and priorities. Folks who owned businesses who nearly went under in 2020 found the concept of "shutdowns" so existential to their family's futures that someone who viewed those negatively seemed more desirable. Culture war issues, issues of taxation, issues of known corruptions, etc, etc, etc.....Just get out and talk to your neighbors. So many are in a lose - lose dilemma when it comes to voting. It's the story of our times I think.

One thing I liked about Laura Lundquist's article is she pointed out that Arnie Dood had a very similar event happen to him under Bullock's regime. Ask some of the long-timers at FWP what working at FWP was like during the Joe Maurier debacle under Schweitzer's regime. Dark and seemingly corrupt events happening in that agency are nothing new.

I'm not saying any of that to equivocate, because things are the worst they have ever been, and this regime is unforgivably bad, but it is because of the complex nature of government, and in particular, the disproportionate amount of power a governor has, that removing the governor's influence over the commission is an interesting idea to me. It would allow voters to focus on hunting as the issue when electing those folks. No, that wouldn't affect this specific issue, and yes, we get what we vote for, and due to the bloated power of government and individuals within it, when you vote you are voting for too many damn things. It's like asking someone to make a single decision that will influence for the next four years, the car they drive, the job they'll have, the food they'll eat, the places they'll travel, and the clothes they'll wear. Oh, and you only get two choices. This ain't carte blanche.

Here we are though, and my whinging about it won't change anything. We gotta lean into things like the Elk Coalition, write letters to the editor, tell yer friends, create relationships with your representatives, and fight for the best though the odds don't look so good. It's all we got. Hoping for a different governor seems an almost longer shot - the well of the Democratic party is too poisoned. I know the gut reaction to that sentence is, "And the R one isn't?" Yes, it is too. What do ya do when you are thirsty and all you have is saltwater? Hold fast folks.

 

[kwyeewyk]

In my limited knowledge of the situation, it seems that this is a problem occurring over the last couple decades, across political parties, with the current administration raising the bar on catering to political pressure at the expense of wildlife management.

So maybe voting this administration out would slow the assault, but honest question, does anybody have hope that a new administration is going to really start caring about the health of the herds?

Seems like there is a huge amount of pressure from wealthy landowners combined with a population that is generally uneducated on the issue and already addicted to the "opportunity" they've become accustomed to.

 

[SwaggyD]

If you vote with a party pick a better candidate for your party.

How long until the "better candidate" gets bought and paid for by big ranch donors?

 

[Sytes]

Blame games reach far beyond one topic. Reflection and consideration for a candidate's character over party *should be the goal. Until then, the pendulum will continue it's increased swing.

"A party should not contain utterly incongruous elements, radically divided on the real issues, and acting together only on false and dead issues insincerely painted as real and vital. It should not in the several States as well as in the Nation be prostituted to the service of the baser type of political boss. It should be so composed that there should be a reasonable agreement in the actions taken by it both in the Nation and in the several States. Judged by these standards, both of the old parties break down." - Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Nameless Range]

If you vote with a party pick a better candidate for your party.

Definitely wisdom in this, outside of discussions of open primaries, etc. Montana had a much better option than the current one on the R side. One problem I see, is I think a venn diagram like this is maybe somewhat representative of reality in 2022 America.


Alright, I'm done being a negative nancy.

 

[Mountain Mule]

Most people in today's society will not vote for conservation issues over things like pro-life/pro-choice, no matter what side of the 'fence' they are on. For which i do not blame them, as that impacts more lives directly in a serious manner. So why not separate conservation/wildlife management from those issues? Make the commisoner no longer appointed/as healvily influenced by the governor. Make the commisoner position one that is directly voted in by the public so that we can look at their resume and conservation values when appointing someone directly. I also believe it would keep the objectives and goals of the agency more consistent, which we know is good for conservation. Changing strategies and altering the playbook with every admin change is not good for conservation. Though I don't see the state flipping back anytime soon, it would be nice to see conservation as a bipartisan issue to begin with. I'm not advocating that 'one side' is inherently better with conservation issues, but rather that is on an individual candidate basis. Thoughts?

 

[runningmt]

How long until the "better candidate" gets bought and paid for by big ranch donors?

Pretty quickly I bet.

Unfortunate reality that far less than 1% of the population of Montana have so much sway. These billionaire “ranchers” can be counted on one hand, yet are the only ones being heard.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

It’s been a 15-20 year process to get where things are at now. Anyone who thinks there is a silver bullet fix is, well, stupid…

 

[rogerthat]

Definitely wisdom in this, outside of discussions of open primaries, etc. Montana had a much better option than the current one on the R side. One problem I see, is I think a venn diagram like this is maybe somewhat representative of reality in 2022 America.

View attachment 223100
Alright, I'm done being a negative nancy.

What does the fox say? Bet we wouldn’t be having a fwp chit show. I tried.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

How long until the "better candidate" gets bought and paid for by big ranch donors?

I think there were > 100,000 MT Gen Res hunting licenses sold, and I believe @Nameless Range concluded around ~5,000 over 100acre landowners in the state, and what maybe a 50-100 of the super big ones.

Most people in today's society will not vote for conservation issues over things like pro-life/pro-choice, no matter what side of the 'fence' they are on. For which i do not blame them, as that impacts more lives directly in a serious manner. So why not separate conservation/wildlife management from those issues? Make the commisoner no longer appointed/as healvily influenced by the governor. Make the commisoner position one that is directly voted in by the public so that we can look at their resume and conservation values when appointing someone directly. I also believe it would keep the objectives and goals of the agency more consistent, which we know is good for conservation. Changing strategies and altering the playbook with every admin change is not good for conservation. Though I don't see the state flipping back anytime soon, it would be nice to see conservation as a bipartisan issue to begin with. I'm not advocating that 'one side' is inherently better with conservation issues, but rather that is on an individual candidate basis. Thoughts?

I'm not sure if this is the "fix" but decoupling culture war issues with governance is definitely important.

We do have a handful of governors that I would even go so far, at risk hyperbole, as to say do a fantastic job at separating the two.

 

[BrentD]

Interesting video simulating alternative options for voting like introducing a 3rd party, different voting systems, and social dynamics in each system.

There in lies the problem. Ultimately, we vote like cavemen, using the worst, most primitive, and just plain bad system possible. Unfortunately, the video has some shortcoming as well, but the general point is well made.

If you are really interested in voting math (fairly simple and pretty much completely understood), you can dive in a lot of different ways, as I once did. When you do, you will find that no system is perfect, so there is no one best answer for all voting for everyone. But after a bit of studying, I came to the conclusion that Condorcet voting is superior for most issues by a long shot. If you are curious, Wikipedia does a pretty good job of explaining the method and why it is probably the best choice for things like choosing amongst the lowest forms of life (aka politicians). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

I think our political nightmare is completely unfixable until we genuinely resolve the way in which we choose our "leaders".

 

[SAJ-99]

In all fairness biologists and wildlife managers had to know what they’ve been doing is wrong for a very long time. They didn’t have much credibility to start with. We are just burning down what was left.

Sure, but they are historically trying to appease people with different priorities - opportunity and quality, and landowners/MOGA that want to put a $ value on everything. And they work on a limited budget that every two years is attacked to prevent “government overreach” or something. This is different. They are literally making it so miserable to get the most experienced people to quit and make it hard to hire new people. When your experienced people quit, the organization implodes from within because your lose that knowledge and basic norms of operation fall apart. Putting unqualified people in charge is typically the death of a corporation. Now we see it being tried on government entities.

 

[Shangobango]

The second dems did something like that at any level of gov, reps would scream over reach, commies, socialist, nazis etc.

And vice versa, just with some different adjectives.

Sad times we are living in politically.

 

[BuzzH]

And vice versa, just with some different adjectives.

Sad times we are living in politically.

Sad times of our own doing...and we drown in apathy doing not a damn thing about it.

I've witnessed the dumbing down of the American Public, which, is also by design.

I will enter Betsy DeVos as exhibit A...

Its already been stated, but why would Montana elect a guy that beat up a reporter. You know, a reporter that is exercising his right of a free press and free speech to ask a guy running for political office a few questions?

Too many tough questions for GG?

Truly, unbelievable, and that is why I'm having a tough time finding sympathy for the majority of Montana's voting public who cast a ballot.

You asked for it, you got it.

 

[brockel]

People act like the majority of Montanans are hunters when only like 1/4 of them are And of those that are probably 75% or more of them don’t have a damn clue or care what’s going on just as long as they can drive around for a month looking for a deer and shoot it thanksgiving weekend. Next election will be the same shit

 

[brocksw]

On some level there is a lack of empathy between major voting demographics. I am friends with a very outspoken democrat on Facebook. It's no surprise that they follow suit with basically every single major issue that the Democrats take a stance on and opposes every single thing the republicans do. His problem, in my opinion, isn't that he doesn't have sound logic or reasoning (even if I disagree with some of his opinions he can still make good points). It's the fact that he's in an echo chamber, a positive feedback loop of political opinions. Constantly being told that he's right and anyone who disagrees is wrong and deserves to be shouted down in front of the public.

But I've tried explaining to him multiple times that he would be much more effective in creating change if he gave some effort to try and truly understand the dynamics at work within the party and issues that he opposes. Things are not as black and white as he makes them appear. Simply getting on FB and calling everyone who disagrees with him an insurrectionist, or a right wing tucker carlson leg humper, or a part of the naivete bro culture is not only unproductive, but its fundamentally illogical. He's insulting the people whos mind he's trying to changeand then turning around and telling everyone that he's fighting for "progress". He believes he's effective because a majority of the feedback is in the same echo chamber. If someone offers a differing opinion or alternative view, he doesn't give it any serious intellectual horsepower to try and understand, he doubles down with condescending remarks and insults.

If you're married, imagine starting every disagreement with your wife by insulting her intelligence and calling her a moron for what she has believed her whole life. You're not going to get very far with "change".

Now imagine that dynamic at play amongst millions of people. Is it really that confusing as to why politics has become a "team sport" where tribalism rules the day and identity politics overtakes any real notion of objective thinking, further cementing yourself into this quasi-permanent political identity that looks more like blind loyalty.

“Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions."- Albert Einstein


Edit: I should add that I'm not perfect and can be guilty of the same thing sometimes.

 

[JMG]

The MT FWP leadership is in a sad state of affairs. I spoke to two FWP employees that work out of some field offices and they were not liking the direction the MT FWP was taking and how employees were treated. Moral is low and it's too bad, we are lucky to have them working for us. The feeling I got was the only reason they continue to work for MT FWP, is they love the work they do. It sure seems the current administration and MT legislature "switched the flip" on how to manage MT's fish and wildlife and how to treat their own employees.