FWP giving up on scientific management

[HighWildFree]

FWP pulls back on science work

Yikes.

FWP is stopping research that takes longer than 2 years. Hard to stop special interests, private landowners, and overeager legislators if you ask the "experts" and all they can do is point to a study done 10-20 years ago.

This is a pretty telling sentence:

“We want to make sure that data collected is applied in ways that don’t alienate private landowners,” Kujala said. “That’s a big part of our effort in that arena. With the mixed landscape ownership we have, if you look to be successful with wildlife management, you need positive relationships with landowners.

 

[rtraverdavis]

This swing of the pendulum that Montana is currently experiencing is unreal. Definitely feels like a “vote the bastards out” moment for you Montana folks.

 

[Gerald Martin]

This swing of the pendulum that Montana is currently experiencing is unreal. Definitely feels like a “vote the bastards out” moment for you Montana folks.

I think the MT Republican Party is pedal to the metal full on “hold my beer and watch us turn this super majority into a minority during one legislative season.”

 

[Nameless Range]

Good grief.

Worsech’s literal strategy to improve landowner relations is a stupidity-drenched version of ignorance is bliss.

 

[MTTW]

I'll be damned, I thought they abandoned science years ago.

 

[Sytes]

Ugly side of politically bi-polar, micro managed settings in today's extreme climate. Until both parties tone this crap down this will be the common theme...

Reap it, as each party slurs after their swig of brew...

 

[shoots-straight]

(Terrible image in my mind) I envision seeing fWP leadership personal going through a dipping process and notice when they come out, that there balls have all been eaten by the Gianforte fish. Congrats to all those in leadership positions, at MTFW&Ps, that have lost their nuts.

 

[marshman]

Well, Montanans voted the guy in as governor, this is what they got. His views are no more a secret now than before he was elected.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

FWP pulls back on science work

“We want to make sure that data collected is applied in ways that don’t alienate private landowners,” Kujala said. “That’s a big part of our effort in that arena. With the mixed landscape ownership we have, if you look to be successful with wildlife management, you need positive relationships with landowners.

.....and what about our vast public lands and their owners? Should they not get a place at the table of "positive relationships" also???....guess not!

 

[RobertD]

Welp... they didn't come here to play school, did they now?

Great quotes from @Gevock in the article so thanks to him for being a voice.

Not really the main topic of discussion, but something I couldn't help but notice: The wolf issue is going to burn these states badly if they aren't careful. Even this article couldn't help but shoehorn it in there. And I say that without offering my opinion on the wolf situation, just noting that the optics of it are going to be hard to navigate.

 

[Sytes]

Even this article couldn't help but shoehorn it in there

Notice the pic caption? 2015... Lead pic? Shows a certain sway within the "article"...

 

[JLS]

We’re emphasizing that at the conclusion of research projects, we need to have done two things: Clearly communicate to all parties that should know about it, and be clear about what's the management question we wanted to ask and answer.”

Seems to me this should be taken care of prior to project approval, not the conclusion.

 

[JLS]

Notice the pic caption? 2015... Lead pic? Shows a certain sway within the "article"...

What’s the relevance of when the dead wolf photo was taken?

 

[Sytes]

We are not going to agree on this… hence the reason some will find a sway to the article and others will find it as desired.

 

[SAJ-99]

We are not going to agree on this… hence the reason some will find a sway to the article and others will find it as desired.

If you see this as desired something is wrong. In science, ask a question because you want the answer, not because you already know what the answer is. This is bad news for everyone that doesn’t think they already have the answer to the problems.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I can't access the article for some reason.

Wow. Have to wonder how those landowner ranchers manage to survive in modern agriculture if they believe engineering results from scientific research doesn't hurt their business. Science doesn't apply unless it fits the agenda. Reality up for bid. That has got to be the absolute stupidest statement published by any government in the last two hundred years. Well okay, second stupidest statement. Injecting disinfectant tops the charts. Still, it's a close run thing. It must be embarrassing to be a Montanan.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Seems to me this should be taken care of prior to project approval, not the conclusion.

You got that right!

 

[tjones]

Montana folks are finding out real quick exactly what they elected.

 

[MTGomer]

Elle, oh, elle.

 

[Sytes]

If you see this as desired something is wrong. In science, ask a question because you want the answer, not because you already know what the answer is. This is bad news for everyone that doesn’t think they already have the answer to the problems.

Ya... again you missed my initial comment of this thread.

Regarding your, "desired" portion, you've taken it out of context or, I'll play a mutual card, I could have written it better, for you.

hence the reason some will find a sway to the article and others will find it as desired.

Hence the reason some will find a sway to the article refers to those who may find a slanted, subjective angle to the author's intent. whereas others will read it as <they> desired. Meaning the sway of the article is fit to follow their viewpoint.

Repeatedly, we see Democrats blaming Montanans for voting G into the Governor's seat among an almost clean red swipe across MT, with respect to the sudden pendulum swing to the other side...
I see it as other HT members have commented, it's more a smack to the D's than it is the joy of electing G, of all wack-jobs.

Same as science - we're all bent over this 2 year limited scope - yet ignore the longer scope of MT politics. Democrats went too far left and Montanan's voted to reverse it.