FWP being systematically dismantled

[Big Fin]

It makes it political if you only talk about it during election season.

It gets talked about here year-round, every year, including election years. At least on this forum.

The topic of wildlife, wildlife management, game agencies being interfered with by politicians, politicians screwing up public access, politicians doing special favors for their buddies, you name it, it happens year-round, every year, not just in election years. So we talk about it.

If the politicians would quit using wildlife as a "spoils of victory" to repay political favors, we wouldn't need these discussions.

 

[Eric Albus]

Joe,

If you’re a fan of the FWP regime of manage the same old way do the same old thing, expect different results, having biologists and regional heads look you in the eye and give their version of the truth, it’d explain a lot.

In the past I’ve been basically told, by FWP, “you can’t believe your lying eyes, and aren’t a biologist, we know what we’re doing and all is well, there’s plenty of mule deer, you just don’t know where to look”. Some of my personal favorites, “whitetail breed like Norwegian rats, they’ll recover in a year or two” this one, “the hunters will target the old barren antelope does”. I can go on and on. I’ve seen our deer and antelope numbers decimated by FWP’s “unlimited OTC doe/fawn license” for way to long.
When someone like Temple comes along and starts shaking things up people don’t like it, they all bitch and whine about deer/elk management, wanting change, then politicize it when convenient, and cry foul ‘cause someone their buddies know either got fired or quit.

In my experience the guys on the inside have more info than the peanut gallery. Personally I’ll sit on the outside looking in, giving those in charge the benefit. If I find out those in charge overstep, I’ll be first in line to demand accountability.

You claim no party affiliation, but I’d bet the last time you voted “R” was for Teddy Roosevelt.
Signed,
Eric Albus

 

[Carnage2011]

It makes it political if you only talk about it during election season.

If you look back over the last three years you’ll find several times where organizations have reached out to GG regarding something shitty he has done with FWP. It’s not political….hes just trash when it comes to wildlife.

 

[cgasner1]

If you look back over the last three years you’ll find several times where organizations have reached out to GG regarding something shitty he has done with FWP. It’s not political….hes just trash when it comes to wildlife.

The state isn’t being ran for the wildlife it’s treated as a bi product and consolation prize. We will probably never get anyone elected that will treat it otherwise. If a guy tried pushing for corner crossing and that was the only thing of value on the ticket they would not be elected. We live in a bubble on this forum and a lot of people don’t put as much into the wildlife as the people on here.

 

[Eric Albus]

This isn’t about politics. It’s about destroying a states wildlife. Nobody cares if it’s an R or D doing it. Result is the same. Montanas need to stand up to this bullsh!t.

It shouldn’t be about politics, it should be about OUR wildlife. Personally more has been done in the last 6 months to help our wildlife, to the point of near putting me in shock. The commission listening to the people on mule deer was a refreshing change for the good.

If you don’t know what transpired here it is.
1. Only one antlerless license per NR if holding no A tag. Only up to 2 antlerless license if holding an A tag.
2. No mule deer doe slaughter on public land. (Biggest win for mule deer, maybe ever)

This is a great start. Hopefully the dept will take a good look at what the mule deer advisory council came up with and make appropriate changes.
I’m very optimistic at this moment. Hopefully I’m not disappointed, I hate disappointment.

 

[Carnage2011]

Joe,

If you’re a fan of the FWP regime of manage the same old way do the same old thing, expect different results, having biologists and regional heads look you in the eye and give their version of the truth, it’d explain a lot.

In the past I’ve been basically told, by FWP, “you can’t believe your lying eyes, and aren’t a biologist, we know what we’re doing and all is well, there’s plenty of mule deer, you just don’t know where to look”. Some of my personal favorites, “whitetail breed like Norwegian rats, they’ll recover in a year or two” this one, “the hunters will target the old barren antelope does”. I can go on and on. I’ve seen our deer and antelope numbers decimated by FWP’s “unlimited OTC doe/fawn license” for way to long.
When someone like Temple comes along and starts shaking things up people don’t like it, they all bitch and whine about deer/elk management, wanting change, then politicize it when convenient, and cry foul ‘cause someone their buddies know either got fired or quit.

In my experience the guys on the inside have more info than the peanut gallery. Personally I’ll sit on the outside looking in, giving those in charge the benefit. If I find out those in charge overstep, I’ll be first in line to demand accountability.

You claim no party affiliation, but I’d bet the last time you voted “R” was for Teddy Roosevelt.
Signed,
Eric Albus

You might want to start demanding accountability then. The people inside are definitely calling Temple and GG out for their bullshit.

How do you feel about temple getting rid of many research bio’s and reassigning them to positions in the parks department? How about him trying to take money out of habitat funds and allocating them to parks?

What would it take for you to actually take off those red glasses and see what’s going on?

 

[Eric Albus]

You might want to start demanding accountability then. The people inside are definitely calling Temple and GG out for their bullshit.

How do you feel about temple getting rid of many research bio’s and reassigning them to positions in the parks department? How about him trying to take money out of habitat funds and allocating them to parks?

What would it take for you to actually take off those red glasses and see what’s going on?

If you’re happy with the way things have been managed for the past 25 years then keep the same ppl in the same positions. If not then shake things up.

What has FWP ever done, or can they do for habitat? That is a huge ask. I know, changing habitat isn’t easy or cheap, so perhaps the funds could’ve been better utilized in parks?

I’ll check into it though.

 

[Carnage2011]

If you’re happy with the way things have been managed for the past 25 years then keep the same ppl in the same positions. If not then shake things up.

What has FWP ever done, or can they do for habitat? That is a huge ask. I know, changing habitat isn’t easy or cheap, so perhaps the funds could’ve been better utilized in parks?

I’ll check into it though.

Don’t deflect. I didn’t say anything about that last 25 years.
They can do a lot for habitat. We have a good bio in my area that has done of conifer encroachment work and beaver dam work by developing good relationships with the blm, USFS, and organizations like RMEF and mdf.

There is a ton of opportunity outside of this small area.

 

[Hem]

Why are there any MD doe tags for non residents? " let's decrease the number of doe tags to people, but increase the number of non resident permits" ." We'll still get are $ ".

 

[Eric Albus]

Why are there any MD doe tags for non residents? " let's decrease the number of doe tags to people, but increase the number of non resident permits" ." We'll still get are $ ".

If I had my druthers there would be no doe tags period. Unfortunately I’m not king. Doe license sales are a non issue monetarily for FWP. The revenue generated amounts to very little.
Bull and buck tags is where the money is at. Personally I’d like to see NR bull and buck tags cut, drastically. This will then fall on R hunters to pick up the shortfall with substantial license fee increases. R hunters may then quit buying license on account of “not getting what they’re paying for”. I’d certainly think this is a possibility, personally I wouldn’t pay $800 like a NR does to hunt mule deer on public land in Mt. As an R I would have a hard time coughing up $100-200 for an A tag to hunt public in Montana.

(Personally I’d not pay more than $25 for an A tag to hunt for what I see on accessible lands)

 

[WanderWoman]

It shouldn’t be about politics, it should be about OUR wildlife. Personally more has been done in the last 6 months to help our wildlife, to the point of near putting me in shock. The commission listening to the people on mule deer was a refreshing change for the good.

If you don’t know what transpired here it is.
1. Only one antlerless license per NR if holding no A tag. Only up to 2 antlerless license if holding an A tag.
2. No mule deer doe slaughter on public land. (Biggest win for mule deer, maybe ever)

This is a great start. Hopefully the dept will take a good look at what the mule deer advisory council came up with and make appropriate changes.
I’m very optimistic at this moment. Hopefully I’m not disappointed, I hate disappointment.

I can understand your appreciation for the mule deer changes from this past season-setting but to me these are short-term band-aids for the next two years. What I’ve seen instead are a lot of long-term, permanent changes I don’t think are best for MT’s resource and the public on a statewide level.

It’s alright to recognize the good things that an administration you don’t like did/does, as it is alright to point out the $hitty things an administration you agree with does. When looking through the lens of the last four years I don’t think the mule deer seasons that apply to the next two hunting seasons are enough to outweigh all the things I personally disagree with. But, I also don’t live in R6 or R7 so I know we have a different perspective there. I appreciate your view on that.

If you’re happy with the way things have been managed for the past 25 years then keep the same ppl in the same positions. If not then shake things up.

What has FWP ever done, or can they do for habitat? That is a huge ask. I know, changing habitat isn’t easy or cheap, so perhaps the funds could’ve been better utilized in parks?

I’ll check into it though.

Alternatively, you can recognize what folks in these positions have managed to stave off over the last 25 years (even when things haven’t always gone the way you want) compared to what is going on now.

Most people are decent and most people employed in public service do so because they want to do right; where the difference lies most times as in many things (including politics), is how to get there. In any job you can start to gauge the effectiveness and quality of a leader by how he or she treats their staff or how their staff feel about them. There’s always going to be a naysayer or two especially when you have a quality leader not afraid to hold people accountable, but at the same time there’s an inflection point in there where the warning lights come on.

As far as what FWP has done for habitat, there is one helluva good habitat conservation program under Habitat MT but it sure seems like it’s been stifled lately. Yeah there’s been a great acquisition but what of all the projects that haven’t happened through it? I’ve heard there are quite a few.

 

[Forkyfinder]

@Eric Albus i have never voted D in my entire life.

Changing this round. Its become increasingly clear to me that the state level Rs care little about wildlife - except how much their political donors can profit off of it.

Maybe im off base - but all kinds of legislation/positions seem rather anti free market. There appears to never be enough subsidy, hand outs, or public resources to take advantage of in this state for land owners. My personal favorite - "elk rent" to properties that outfit. Approximately how many elk does a trophy fee of 10-25k$ feed? Quite enough to stay out of sportsmans and tax payers pockets in my estimation. Theres a ranch in gallatin county that gets damage money from elk and makes 100k+ selling bulls off. Laughable.

If im wrong - id love to see evidence otherwise.

 

[Eric Albus]

@Eric Albus i have never voted D in my entire life.

Changing this round. Its become increasingly clear to me that the state level Rs care little about wildlife - except how much their political donors can profit off of it.

Maybe im off base - but all kinds of legislation/positions seem rather anti free market. There appears to never be enough subsidy, hand outs, or public resources to take advantage of in this state for land owners. My personal favorite - "elk rent" to properties that outfit. Approximately how many elk does a trophy fee of 10-25k$ feed? Quite enough to stay out of sportsmans and tax payers pockets in my estimation. Theres a ranch in gallatin county that gets damage money from elk and makes 100k+ selling bulls off. Laughable.

If im wrong - id love to see evidence otherwise.

As a rule if a ranch isn’t open for public access they get ZERO FWP dollars

 

[Forkyfinder]

As a rule if a ranch isn’t open for public access they get ZERO FWP dollars

Ive heard incorrectly from someone who works there, apparently.

Is that in a policy somewhere?

 

[sclancy27]

This shit has been happening with FWP for decades.

 

[BuzzH]

Ive heard incorrectly from someone who works there, apparently.

Is that in a policy somewhere?

No. It wasn't even a month after elk shoulder seasons were implemented that landowners started charging for cow elk hunts (near Drummond). We were all assured the dept. would put their foot down if that were to happen...I think what they meant was put their boot in the ass of hunters.

 

[Stone_Ice_1]

Ive heard incorrectly from someone who works there, apparently.

Is that in a policy somewhere?

I also know folks who work there. I know ranchers that have gotten money for fences/hay and other things because they claim there are too many elk on their property and they are destroying their hay/fences. These are ranches that don't allow public hunting at all but they get money from FWP for those things.

If they don't want the elk destroying their land the solution is simple. Let people hunt it. It is that simple.

 

[WanderWoman]

I also know folks who work there. I know ranchers that have gotten money for fences/hay and other things because they claim there are too many elk on their property and they are destroying their hay/fences. These are ranches that don't allow public hunting at all but they get money from FWP for those things.

If they don't want the elk destroying their land the solution is simple. Let people hunt it. It is that simple.

FWP does not reimburse landowners for game damage with $$. The closest it comes is materials (stack yards, fence). Per statute that landowner has to allow free public access and the bio/warden that work on a particular complaint need to document that.

Also, a landowner may qualify one year and not the next, things change year to year.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Having been on the phone for a couple days, don't even get me started on the Type 2 BMAs. Technically, it's considered public access.

 

[BuzzH]

Having been on the phone for a couple days, don't even get me started on the Type 2 BMAs. Technically, it's considered public access.

It is public access. The public gets to pay landowners to allow their relatives to hunt on their land.