I am struggling with the outrage of a fishery administrator being dismissed vs what has happened to the wildlife side? I don’t want to hijack any threads but why are people suggesting we have to vote for democrats for better wildlife management when they were at the helm for half my life and things didnt improve they got way worse. It seems fairly easy to put wildlife and fish first, fwp certainly hasn’t on the wildlife side. Educate me. The politics of it is mind numbing. Elect the commission by region, heck elect the director. We can’t continue to do what we are doing.
Fishery vs. wildlife
- Thread starter DFS
- Start date
WanderWoman
Well-known member
The governor isn’t the only part to F&W management when we get above the agency level. I’ve been unhappy with a lot of things to come out of past administrations and a lot of those originated in our past legislatures that the gov either didn’t (or couldn’t?) veto. Or changes that could/should have been made but didn’t make it past the legislature..
Legislatively mandated to manage elk to objective, for one. Corner crossing not making it back when it was drafted, another.
And no governor is perfect. Even those I share a political affiliation with I’ve found things to disagree on..
My 2c.
Legislatively mandated to manage elk to objective, for one. Corner crossing not making it back when it was drafted, another.
And no governor is perfect. Even those I share a political affiliation with I’ve found things to disagree on..
My 2c.
perma
Well-known member
Newberg Hockett 2024
I think the people who say to vote for Democrats are Democrats. Sure, they may say they are Independents.
For the most part, you should vote for the best candidate for issues that are the most important to you. You may have to vote for someone who you don't completely agree with though. In your area, maybe that's a Democrat or maybe not.
Also, there is a lot of gaslighting to suggest "such and such" is going to pass if you vote for x. The reality is that the status quo is much more possible.
For the most part, you should vote for the best candidate for issues that are the most important to you. You may have to vote for someone who you don't completely agree with though. In your area, maybe that's a Democrat or maybe not.
Also, there is a lot of gaslighting to suggest "such and such" is going to pass if you vote for x. The reality is that the status quo is much more possible.
Hem
Well-known member
I don't think at this point anyone is saying vote D or R. I'm certainly not. People want better options on both sides, hell even one side. The decline in our wildlife/ fisheries has been going on for the last 25 years. It's just now painfully obvious to those who never bothered to pay attention.
The question is can it get fixed, and who will fix it?
The question is can it get fixed, and who will fix it?
T
tjones
Guest
All the self claimed Independents I know are hard core R’s. They use the Independent as a crutch and I live in the heart of hard core R.
Hell there are some right here on HT.
What difference does that make to wildlife and fish management? I respect what you have done for game management, far more than any democrat or republican. I have seen it both ways in my lifetime and as far as fwp management it doesn’t make a difference how you vote in Montana the wildlife suffer.
longbow51
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2023
- Messages
- 1,054
I was on a task force to address river crowding way back when Racicot was Governor. In the end, money won; guides, hotels, etc. Through many administrations D and R, nothing has changed.
To likely misquote Abbey from memory, but get the gist correct, "deaf to thunderstorms in the mountains, but able to hear a dollar bill drop on hotel carpet".
To likely misquote Abbey from memory, but get the gist correct, "deaf to thunderstorms in the mountains, but able to hear a dollar bill drop on hotel carpet".
YukonGold
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2022
- Messages
- 225
I am hearing from longtime FWP employees that this is the worst they've ever experienced, regardless of other Ds or Rs who were in the governor's office.
The biggest thing I'm seeing, wildlife-wise, is the shift of decision-making away from the local staff and more onto Helena staff/Director's office. Like taking away the ability for bios to adjust buck and bull permits. I'm even hearing that they're getting pushback on adjusting B licenses now, and multiple season proposals developed by the bios aren't even making it to the commission because the director axes them.
It's sad to see the local staff, who have a closer knowledge of the biological conditions and local public sentiment than anyone else in the department (usually), be stripped of so much of their decision-making abilities.
The biggest thing I'm seeing, wildlife-wise, is the shift of decision-making away from the local staff and more onto Helena staff/Director's office. Like taking away the ability for bios to adjust buck and bull permits. I'm even hearing that they're getting pushback on adjusting B licenses now, and multiple season proposals developed by the bios aren't even making it to the commission because the director axes them.
It's sad to see the local staff, who have a closer knowledge of the biological conditions and local public sentiment than anyone else in the department (usually), be stripped of so much of their decision-making abilities.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
No one is suggesting how you should vote, but if you want a change, continuing to bang your head against the same wall is pointless. No “side” is perfect, but it should be clear that they have different constituencies which drives legislative decisions. Also, like every state, MT has a lot of other problems that need to be addressed other than wildlife.
I would love to move back to the middle in terms of candidates, but they tend to get marginalized in the primaries. I also hate single party control (Montana had a super majority last session). In those situations the party ends up compromising with itself (moderate vs extreme wings) and everyone else (constituents more represented by the other party) is told to go fly a kite.
We have the opposite in WA of your situation in MT and I am looking hard at the R governor candidate because he seems more moderate. If he avoids the big orange elephant in the room, he will get a lot of moderates/independents. I hope that maybe that potential veto will result in compromise between the state reps, rather than ramming ideas down everyones throats.
YukonGold
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2022
- Messages
- 225
What else has been going on in the last 25 years? Increasing human population, climate change, noxious weed spread, catastrophic wildfires, reduction in logging...just saying that FWP has made a lot of mistakes (take the ridiculous overharvest of Bitterroot mountain goats up until the last couple of decades) but they can't control everything that affects wildlife and fish populations. There are a vast number of environmental policies under the control of other people/departments/the legislature that could do way more for wildlife populations than just adjusting hunting seasons and quotas.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Couple things- the slow burn has been going on longer than 25 years , and you also forgot to mention the wolf impact. Easy for some to jump to conclusions on that being also a right wing excuse but the impact on deer, elk, numbers and distribution has been huge and that’s going back also 25 years..
YukonGold
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2022
- Messages
- 225
List was not intended to be exhaustive. But the science tends to show that habitat has a much more profound and long-lasting effect on wildlife populations than anything else.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
But the science tends to show that lack of habitat has a much more profound and long-lasting effect on wildlife populations than anything else.
FIFY.
Abbey's quote resonates, "deaf to thunderstorms in the mountains, but able to hear a dollar bill drop on hotel carpet". Extraction and development born of greed.
brocksw
Well-known member
May I ask what's gotten worse, outside of the politics? Not trying to play "got ya", just trying to understand your perspective and the metric you're using when you say "worse".
Please, correct me if I'm wrong on any these long term population trends.
Elk - overall numbers are up since 2000 from the numbers I've seen. That's in spite of the growth of wolves and bears.
Pronghorn - numbers are more weather dependent than anything, and I think virtually all fluctuations in populations can be attributed to that.
Mule Deer - obviously there's a huge debate about this right now, but it seems devoid of politics.
Big Horn sheep - In spite of significant disease challenges, populations since 2000 seem to be holding steady.
Sage grouse - their challenges are partly politics, but how they arrived at those problems is not so much politics as it is habitat.
Mountain Goats - Populations are somewhat steady
Moose - Growing populations from what I've heard
Hem
Well-known member
Absolutely all the above^
FWP responsible for keeping track though.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Depends on the state, but specific to Montana, the only thing that's better than when I started hunting is turkeys and elk on private land. Everything else is significantly worse.
Edit: wolf, maybe lion hunting as well.
brocksw
Well-known member
That could be. The hunting getting worse could be attributed to a lot of things. I know the family friends we have in SE MT have spoken before about the change in leased acres and the inability to hunt land they've hunted historically because of it. And too me, that's what's caused one of the biggest changes in hunting, this loss of access through privatization. The other is habitat loss...
Unless my numbers are incorrect...
MT elk (2005) - just under 100,000
MT elk (2022) - 141,000
MT Bighorn Sheep (2000) - 5,820
MT Bighorn Sheep (2014 and 2015 highs since 2000) - 6,650
MT Bighorn Sheep (2023/2024) - 5,700
MT Mountain Goats(2008) - 2,719
MT Mountain Goats(2016) - 3,685
Pronghorn - populations so dependent on weather I'm not sure if this would be a good example no matter what population numbers say
MT Moose - I can only find that they've been hovering around 5,000 since 2006.
Last edited:
I guess I don’t get their point. When the local staff made decisions, wildlife management wasn’t great. Now, it’s not great. Seems like they are just annoyed that they don’t get to be the ones messing it up.
Just sharing my viewpoint from the peanut gallery.
Carnage2011
Well-known member
Elk numbers are mainly up due to the expansion into eastern MT. That has nothing to do with FWP...if the majority of those elk were on public we would decimate them. Just like we have in western Montana.
Mule Deer-Obviously they are in the tank.
Sheep-It's hit or miss. We have the best units in the world (the breaks) and our FWP has over issued ram tags to the point of having to drastically cut them this year.
Goats-Native populations are in the tank. We've over allocated on many occasions and now we stand here with a fraction of the tags.
Moose-Growing Populations? The only growing populations that I'm aware of are in Eastern MT and up on the hi-line. Our bio's seem to have little info on that other than more reported sightings from hunters.
I also think that basing this on long term population trends alone is a poor metric. There is a lot more to it. Populations may be similar but that doesn't mean we have healthy herds on public land. Many of these large private ranches can basically manage their own populations by allowing their desired level of access. Prime example would be the populations of elk in the snowy's. With 6,000 elk on Wilk's alone and a fraction of that on public, FWP has very little "management" in that area.
