Interesting Read

[BigHornRam]

Comments?

http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_91ef1437-4df9-5ea0-8667-728e6f63ae91.html

 

[BigHornRam]

Comments?

http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_91ef1437-4df9-5ea0-8667-728e6f63ae91.html

Looks like I will be first to comment. Here goes.

My first impression of this Nie fellow is that he is an agenda driven weasel that could benefit emensly from a good old fashioned ass kicking. Too harsh, or not harsh enough?

Second comment. What the hell is the Forest Service doing commissioning a jackass' like this?

 

[brymoore]

I think we're seeing PLT's next tactic: demand state access to federal lands for wildlife management. When the Feds bulk at giving up control, state wildlife management will be used to advocate PLT from the Fed to the states.

 

[BigHornRam]

I think we're seeing PLT's next tactic: demand state access to federal lands for wildlife management. When the Feds bulk at giving up control, state wildlife management will be used to advocate PLT from the Fed to the states.

So Brymoore, you think Nie is PLT hack? Might want to research your conspiracy out a little more.

More like an Obama hack that got his bs called out by the new administration, then was canned by the FS. Now he's crying to the Missoulian about it.

 

[brymoore]

I don't know anything about Nie. I do know that conservation groups and individuals from Montana are arguing that state wildlife managers must have access to Federal lands. Furthermore, they state that support of Federal ownership of land is questionable without it. I wonder whom Zinke has been speaking with in Montana?

 

[Big Fin]

Some of us had an advance copy of the report from the Bolle Center. It's findings and claims are counter to 175 years of legal precedent that establish how/why states are vested with the trustee responsibility to manage wildlife within their borders. If the Bolle Center, Nie, and others who worked on the report did not see the shit storm they were brewing, then they are very ignorant of how wildlife conservation has historically worked in this country or they were living under a rock for all of their careers.

I still have my copy of this document. I wish it was still on their website. If you are a hunter and believe in state trusteeship of wildlife, game and non-game, it will leave you scratching your head. If you want Federal oversight of wildlife management, then this report will be used to support your case.

Not sure where the funding came from, but if you read some of the conclusions drawn and the logic used to reach those conclusions, it seems there was some pre-determined destination to this report.

To hear whining about it at this time is rather comical. Bolle Center took a huge hit to their credibility in the eyes of many conservation groups I interact with.

 

[BigHornRam]

Some of us had an advance copy of the report from the Bolle Center. It's findings and claims are counter to 175 years of legal precedent that establish how/why states are vested with the trustee responsibility to manage wildlife within their borders. If the Bolle Center, Nie, and others who worked on the report did not see the shit storm they were brewing, then they are very ignorant of how wildlife conservation has historically worked in this country or they were living under a rock for all of their careers.

I still have my copy of this document. I wish it was still on their website. If you are a hunter and believe in state trusteeship of wildlife, game and non-game, it will leave you scratching your head. If you want Federal oversight of wildlife management, then this report will be used to support your case.

Not sure where the funding came from, but if you read some of the conclusions drawn and the logic used to reach those conclusions, it seems there was some pre-determined destination to this report.

To hear whining about it at this time is rather comical. Bolle Center took a huge hit to their credibility in the eyes of many conservation groups I interact with.

The Forest Service paid for this fine report.

"The U.S. Forest Service has disavowed a legal analysis it commissioned that showed federal land managers have given state wildlife departments more authority than they really possess. "

What a sorry mess we are in.

 

[BigHornRam]

I don't know anything about Nie. I do know that conservation groups and individuals from Montana are arguing that state wildlife managers must have access to Federal lands. Furthermore, they state that support of Federal ownership of land is questionable without it. I wonder whom Zinke has been speaking with in Montana?

Please share some more of this conspiracy, Brymoore. Do you even know what this issue and report is about?

 

[Nameless Range]

I don't know much about this issue, but I have a copy of one of Nie's books - "The Governance of Western Public Lands". I'll give it to anyone who wants it.


It's unfortunate though that instead of being released and thoroughly debunked, this has been swept under the rug and hidden, making it a powerful mystery to those who are opposed to State Management of our wildlife. It just seems like a weird situation all around. Case in point:

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am not a friend of the Federal Govt. usurping state authority, but I believe the days of "the states can do what they want with wild game on federal lands, or are otherwise cross state boundaries" are numbered. I don't say this because I am advocating for that, but I say this because there are 16 million residents in the mountain west states of AZ, CO, UT, NV, NM, ID, MT and WY and there are 293 million residents not in those states, some of whom are interested in pressing this topic. And SCOTUS is not going to be of much help, since they only respected the states regulation in the absence of federal regulation, not because the states trumped the feds on federal land.

 

[TheTone]

I am not a friend of the Federal Govt. usurping state authority, but I believe the days of "the states can do what they want with wild game on federal lands, or are otherwise cross state boundaries" are numbered. I don't say this because I am advocating for that, but I say this because there are 16 million residents in the mountain west states of AZ, CO, UT, NV, NM, ID, MT and WY and there are 293 million residents not in those states, some of whom are interested in pressing this topic. And SCOTUS is not going to be of much help, since they only respected the states regulation in the absence of federal regulation, not because the states trumped the feds on federal land.

Feel free to come hunt ID anytime you want, there is a pile of nonresident tags just waiting to be bought. You'll have plenty of company from other non residents (lots from the upper mid west) based on what I see every year.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Randy,

can you post the study so we can read it?

My past experience w/ Dr. Nie is he generally gets it right. Lots of groups are mad at the USFWS over the AK deal, but there is a long-standing history of federal management of wildlife in specific instances, like the Nat'l Bison range, Wildlife refuges, Migratory Bird Treaty etc.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's the link to the paper:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...pdf_4ead7a31-11bc-522c-8415-d3ab1e8fd081.html

Just reading it now.

 

[Eric Albus]

Don't know much about FS authority when it comes to managing "their" wildlife, but would hazard a guess that it is something along the lines of BLM, or the CMR's. Perhaps a memorandum of understanding? The 2 agencies lastly mentioned have a MOU with Mt. FWP.. If anyone is thinks that the state is 100% in charge of wildlife I would recommend reading the MOU's.

Why is the CMR closed the last 2 weeks of the general deer season on the north side of Ft. Peck? Cause the feds say so.