MOGA - FWP "public" meeting?

[Ben Lamb]

Nobody that I'm aware of yet.

 

[BuzzH]

Thanks Ben...no wonder I couldnt find anything.

 

[shoots-straight]

MSA is made up of pretty much the same guys as the MWF, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it most likely is a duck! True MSA wasn't formed when testimony was given on HB-361, but their President Vito did give untruthful testimony opposing HB-361. And that is why I am so upset, those archery elk permits has caused me not draw a permit and for what reason?

I happen to be the Treasurer of this group. I have never been in a position of power at the MWF. In fact the only affiliation I had to MWF was that our local sportsman's group is an affiliate. Some 26 sportsman's' groups throughout the state are also affiliated. I also was on their phone tree as an activist. If your a sportsman, (even outfitters that belong to sportsman's groups) your most likely affiliated. MWF have thousands of members statewide. Huge percentage are hunters.

You could give out a million cow tags for those Hunting Districts and that still doesn't mean the landowners are going to open up their ranches when they can't draw a either sexed permit for their friends, family, clients and themselves. You just don't get it do you? It isn't about population objectives, it is about trying to open up more access to private property, pure and simple, and that is what is what is pissing me off! I am caught in the middle, losing more and more access. The MWF & MSA are not doing us any good and don't say you are representing the majority of the sportsmen and women in Montana.

Your the one that doesn't get it! Going to permits wasn't to force landowners from opening there lands. It was to put NR hunters on a parody of 10% of the hunters in the area. It was to limit NR hunters from over running the Breaks and promoting leasing. The only way to limit NR's (by state law) is to limit the resident. You did draw right? So what you bitching about?

I-161 has the Department worried because of I-161 they have over 3,000 elk licenses still available. The main thing I-161 has done is to decrease the over all number of applicants by 40% for the big game licenses. The typical nonresident just isn't willing to pay the higher priced license. The last two years since I-161 were the first years in recent history that the FWP hasn't sold all of the licenses and have had many hunters on the alternates list.

The overall applicants decreased before I-161. In fact the last 2 years of OSL. They didn't sell out either. In fact, licenses are $300 cheaper for those that used outfitters. You ever consider the fact that resident licenses have decreased every year for the last three years. In fact, all sales of licenses have decrease in that same time. Do you think $20 for a elk license is too high? Why are resident licenses decreasing at the same time? Do you have any clues? Maybe the game isn't there? Maybe the economy isn't so good?

I don't know much about 607 but what I have heard is that we should be happy that they kept their deer licenses or they would have return both licenses causing even more lost revenue. What has really hurt the Department is all of the Nonresident hunters that have returned their elk licenses because they didn't draw an archery elk permit. So the Department should also be thanking the MWF & MSA for their support of both of these blunders!

You would have done yourself a favor then by keeping your mouth shut on this. HB 607 was promoted by MOGA, and UPOM, not MSA, or MWF. It has allowed NR to turn their tags in. If not for this law, they couldn't have turned the whole tag in, if not drawn. They would have had to go elsewhere in the state to hunt. The money from HB 607 once it gets turned back in and then re sold goes into accounts other than Habitat Montana, and Block. That was designed to underfund these accounts. If in fact your a "Resident Hunter" (which I doubt) then you should have been furious at MOGA, or UPOM for defunding access for resident, and non resident sportsman.

See attachement that the dept. compiled.

 

[shoots-straight]

buzz...i take exception to the "outfitter welfare" comment....the OSL was not "welfare"...nor subsidy. That license was no different than a couch or car on a showroom floor....it was simply a vehicle we had to sell(for the state) in order for someone wanting to use my services to hunt w/ me. period...today my clients still enjoy a 100% draw rate for license, and the license is less expensive...161 was a dismal failure.

If your clients draw 100% of the time, why is it your in every paper, and mag, comment section commenting on how bad I-161 has been for the Dept. with lost revenue? Please fill us in on this grand failure! Give us more than lack of sales. If your 100% on clients, then why do you care how many more NR come here. Is it because you also lease lands to charge daily fees for access?

 

[Nemont]

Here is my issue with MOGA and the FWP meeting for two days without anyone else in the room, it gives the impression that the fix is in for something to happen that is bad for resident hunters. Whether or not anything actually happens doesn't really matter, it is the appearance that something bad is brewing that makes everyone determine that this meeting doesn't pass the smell test.

Both MOGA and the FWP are politically astute enough to know that this meeting will cause all kinds of problems and headaches for them as there was no way to keep it low profile. Given this fact then one has to ask why were both MOGA and the FWP willing to put up with that headache? The answer is that whatever there is to be gained by keeping the light of day from the meeting is worth the said headache.

It leads me to believe that MOGA once again is going to figure out a way to stick it to resident hunters and then demand that we all need to stick together to keep non hunters off our backs. If MOGA and it's members believe Don Peay is an above the board honest broker in anything then they will have to fight nearly all the average Joe's who hunt.

I don't think MOGA any longer cares about it's image among the non outfitting average Montanan or it thinks it has enough money and power to steam roll any opposition otherwise they would not participate in such meetings. Either way such meetings never lead to any good coming about for people of average means.

Landowners and leasee's have my support in their property rights 100%, the Outfitting industry is an important part of our economy but that does not give them carte blanche to determine what is best for anybody but themselves. MOGA is treading on dangerous ground if it is linking up with groups like SFW and guys like Don Peay. SFW has proven over and over to be an outright enemy of hunters who don't have big wallets or want to hunt even on public lands. I hate to see MOGA move in that direction but it doesn't shock me.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

Good points.

I dont think MOGA really cares and they only have a LOT to gain with hitching their team to the SFW wagon.

SFW has a track record of endorsing and pushing Ranching for Wildlife Programs, transferable landowner tags, commission tags, governors tags. Most all of those permits are bought by high paying CLIENTS, not by guys that hunt on their own.

For SFW, they finally have found a group (Outfitters) who buy into the commercialization of wildlife that they are trying to push.

Its a match made in "throwing the aveage guy under the bus heaven" for both groups.

The ONLY thing standing in the way of SFW/Outfitters groups and their agenda to privitize the publics resources, are the guys like most found on this board. They are in for an epic battle if they think the public is going to roll over...

 

[drahthaar]

Folks fear for their jobs and that is affecting how they do their jobs.

I have heard this very thing from someone within FWP. Interesting you should say that.

 

[CabinFever]

As have I...

 

[drahthaar]

You know, you hear from these political candiates that one of their main points of their platform is "gutting", "retooling", "changing the culture", of MT FWP. I get concerned that one or more of these guys is tied to the SFW, or wants to use their model of wildlife management to make over MT FWP.

Ties to SFW by candidates would be great info to have.

 

[shoots-straight]

1. The wilderness bill...a couple of the MOGA members thought it was a good idea...I wished them luck w/ it and told them it would never fly...and I was right...it did not.

Eric,

The organizations I belong to have rules of order to follow. If a few want to carry the name of the many, then we vote on it.

MOGA represents all it's membership and if they push a bill, then that had to be voted on by someone there. A majority of whomever present at a meeting of the general membership would have had to vote in favor. Therefore MOGA as a whole was pushing this bill. To say a few fellas wanted it is a cop out and misrepresents the fact.

MOGA tried to add 2000 combo tags to be used in wilderness areas. On SB414 (the wolf bill) a day earlier they argued that wolves had decimated all the game in those same areas and needed that legislation passed. Hmmm!

Sounds like MOGA could use a house cleaning too!

 

[ingomar]

Make no mistake-the FWP dept. is totally paralyzed due to it's leadership at the top. Ever wonder why Regional Wildlife Managers are no longer at the FWP Commission meetings?? From what I have heard, the Director will not allow them to attend even though they are the most knowledgeable on wildlife in their regions.

There is a total disconnect between the Dept. and the Commission. Very unfortunate as we have some of the best field people in the Dept you can find anywhere and our Commissioners are doing an very admirable job under terrible circumstances Everyone wants to blame the Commission and the dept. when the problem really is only 2 people in the dept.

 

[Pierre]

Ingomar is correct. The folks on the ground in FWP are really good folks overall. They are doing their best under very trying circumstances. They not only are good to work with but their professionalism is very high. This commission is very good too. They really get out amongst sportsmen and find out our concerns. They have been very responsive and very fair.
All in all, I am asking myself why sportsmen are allowing our folks to be browbeaten by the head office. It is our Dept and these folks work with us and for us. It is long past time to start standing up for them. :hump:

 

[BuzzH]

The people need to demand accountability from the Governor and the MTFWP Leadership for issues like this. The same people need to be held accountable for creating a working atmosphere where FWP employees are kept from expressing their professional opinions on what is best for the citizens wildlife. IMO, the MTFWP Director has created nothing but a hostile work environment and should be taken to task for it.

Thats a sorry excuse of a Director that has to use threats of terminating employment of his own people for doing whats best for the wildlife.

The politics and shady back-room deals need to end...the only thing truly suffering from this is OUR PUBLIC WILDLIFE and some damn good FWP employees that deserve much better.

 

[shoots-straight]

The people need to demand accountability from the Governor and the MTFWP Leadership for issues like this. The same people need to be held accountable for creating a working atmosphere where FWP employees are kept from expressing their professional opinions on what is best for the citizens wildlife. IMO, the MTFWP Director has created nothing but a hostile work environment and should be taken to task for it.

Thats a sorry excuse of a Director that has to use threats of terminating employment of his own people for doing whats best for the wildlife.

The politics and shady back-room deals need to end...the only thing truly suffering from this is OUR PUBLIC WILDLIFE and some damn good FWP employees that deserve much better.

As is usually the case, Buzz gets it again!

 

[howler]

I would hope the Gov and the Gov to be is aware of how we feel,, If not what would be the best route for us to take and make sure the new guys in town (after the election) are aware..

 

[Big Fin]

I would hope the Gov and the Gov to be is aware of how we feel,, If not what would be the best route for us to take and make sure the new guys in town (after the election) are aware..

Not sure if the Governor is aware of how we feel, but from my phone calls today, I suspect most everyone involved with wildlife politics in Helena is aware of how people on this thread feel.

I did speak with a person in the Helena HQ today who was at the meeting. I have known him for a long time and he is someone who is a good source of info.

The Department realizes that this was probably not the best way to go about this type of a meeting. He did tell me everyone who was in attendance, what was discussed, and that the notes of the meeting and the content delivered is a matter of public record to anyone who asks.

He was surprised at the level of anomosity resident hunters have expressed on this thread. He hoped that was not widely held. I explained that many posting or lurking here are leaders of most the rod and gun clubs in the state, so his fears are probably a reality.

He asked me if I had any recommendations to allow the department to have a better image and level of trust than what he read here. I gave him some of my ideas, but they are just one person's impressions. I am sure if he asked ten others, he would have ten different answers.

I strongly feel that the Department can NOT effectively lead from closed doors in Helena. It requires the top brass to be out in the public, at every meeting possible, at every legislative hearing, articulating their vision and direction they see. That might not be the management style of some, but when you are the CEO, COO, VP, etc. you have to be able to do that. If not, find someone who can.

So long as the top brass avoids public forums, public meetings, lets others dictate agenda/message, and sends their underlings to do all the listening, the path of communication that goes to leadership will not foster confidence that the leadership is in tune with the stakeholders. Just human nature.

Hardly ever is top brass of this Department at public meetings, with the exception of Commission meetings. I go to a ton of open houses, tentative regualtion meetings, management planning meetings, rod and gun club meetings, and I rarely see any of the top leadership there to recieve the input being provided.

To the average guy, that shows a disconnect of the leadership from the masses. That may not be true, but that is the impression it leaves.

The Department top brass and the Commission have a terrible relationship. There is little or no communication between the two branches. The most knowledgeable biologists and regional big game managers are not allowed to be at Commission meetings to provide answers to very important questions the Commissioners might have. Yet, those big game managers are the ones out in the public meetings taking all the public input.

The Commission makes final decisions on a many things, but the Department has difficulting communucating with the Commission. Regardless of the personal dynamics, for the Department to function, that communciation needs to occur. Break down in that process is fertile grounds for the dysfunction so many accuse the Department of in the last few years.

If you are leading an organization, you are the face of that organization. Your customers (hunters and anglers) want to know what you have for a vision. They want to know the direction you are taking your organization.

Failing to articulate a vision puts you in on the field as a legislative football. If you fail to explain and convey your vision for the agency, expect legislators to see that as ineptitude, weakness, or withdrawal. Where they see that, they will step forward to provide their vision; a vision not always benefiting from a staff of highly trained wildlife professionals, rather most often the armchair biologist who called them to tell that legislator what to do.

Failing to articulate a vision and a direction is going to make the upcoming legislative session worse than the last one. I did not think it could be worse, but my fears of such are mounting.

Lack of communication and leadership creates a vaccuum. In that vaccuum lives misinformation, rumor, and distrust.

As the old saying goes, "you have to provide your vision, or someone will provide YOUR vision for YOU." You cannot lead without vision and direction that is articulated to those you are accountable to.

Whether correct, or not, the impression many of the leaders of the rod and gun clubs have is that the Department leadership is out of touch with the resident hunters and anglers. That the Department leadership refuses to lead, the most important function of their job. That is what has been expressed by many in their posts to this thread.

These rod and gun club guys can cite as an example, the many requests for meetings that are made and invitations provided, for just a short meeting, at the convenience of the Department leadership, where the rod and gun clubs can hardly get a returned phone call. That does not build collaboration in whatever vision the Department has for its largest stakeholder group. It breeds suspicion and distrust when a different group can coordinate a meeting and have the entire top leadership of the Department show up, for two days, almost behind closed doors.

Hell, if I was MOGA, I would be wanting these kind of meetings. I would be thankful to the Department for doing such. I don't blame MOGA in the least. If I was in Mac Menard's shoes, I would do exactly what he did. If I was one of his members, I would congratulate him on a job well done.

Yet, the largest stakeholder in the discussion, in terms of participants, is standing on the outside looking in. When that stakeholder hears the rumors, whether true or not, that MOGA has a tight leash on the Department leadership, events of the last week only serve to convert a rumor to a perception, in the eyes of the other stakeholders.

In the future, it might be best to have these meetings with different types of stakeholders in attendance, so no one has to rely on third hand versions of what transpired. Seems it might be more useful to have meetings where resident hunters, outfitters, landowners, and whoever, are represented at the same time.

Not sure what more will come of this. I think plenty of opinions have been expressed. Many have come from people very involved in the politics of hunting in Montana. Many from guys who have spent weeks in Helena, defending the Department in the worst legislative session in memory, giving the Department the benefit of the doubt.

For these resident hunter activists to now be this frustrated with Department leadership does not bode well for the beating sure to come to the Department in the next session. If those folks are not going to defend the Department in the next session, who is?

The Department may feel they are leading. They may feel they are being improperly called out. They may feel this post is just a big deal about a meeting that was short on substance.

Whatever the feeling within the Department, I think it is obvious by comments on this thread, that many leaders outside the Department feel the Department is not leading; that some in Department leadership have motives that are open to question; that Department leadership does not have the stomach for the tough decisions it will take to solve complex problems among many diverse and passionate stakeholders.

The perceptions articulated here, are reality to those who posted it. Whether right or wrong, those perceptions show that the Department has some major work to do in rebuilding their relationships with their long-term constituents.

 

[Eric Albus]

Part of the problem with this entire subject is based on the above statement...You hope it takes enough time that YOU will no longer have to deal with it as you will be dead or retired. The great thing about a lot of people on this site...they want to leave a legacy. They want MANY generations to have the same or more opportunity than they have. It's not all about today and the dollar signs...It seems you look at the resource in what it can do for you...many here look at what they can do for the resource.

Mattk...do you think that I have no legacy to leave? If I only looked at "what the resource did for me" I would over hunt every acre I own, and every acre I lease. I have always put the resource first. I will readily admit that I have made some mistakes and underestimates on the reproductive capabilities of whitetailed deer....ones that I hope to not repeat in the future.....I am the first to admit that I am in an enviable position to do more for wildlife than most are....and it costs me a lot of $$ annually to do what I have(not only in food plots, but memberships/donations to conservation groups)....so, since you are making the accusation, what have you done for the wildlife lately?

 

[Eric Albus]

well, kinda hard to sort thru the b.s. on here and all remember the comments directed at me...the most glaring...and aggravating... making an accusation that I would fault someone from selling to the APF, or would deny the APF purchasing lands...I may not like it, but would NEVER oppose it...to suggest so is very poor...

If the bison were termed "livestock" instead of the "free-range" moniker, be more palatible...free roaming is a bit disturbing....and I know that the Dept. is supposed to be liable for the damage(but just like deer/elk would be only if you allowed public access?), the Feds were supposed to be responsible for the wolves too.

What I fail to understand about most of you is that you seem to place a very high value on most of the same things I do...habitat, wildlife, conservation..... it seems that it is even alright to lease land from ranchers...as long as you are not outfitting on it. I know one of the "outfitter haters" on here leased a private ranch last year to elk hunt on....seems hipocritical to me...but maybe I am missing something? (oh, if he is not making a buck, it's alright?)

I do agree w/ the that the Dept. has some very good folks working for them, especially in the enforcement division....those guys are working overtime to improve the Dept.'s image.

 

[BuzzH]

Why should a wild bison be classified as livestock?

Thats a crock of shit...and would turn over all management decisions to the Department of Livestock regarding Bison Management. The Elk game farmers tried the same with elk...they wanted them to be classified as livestock as well.

Make no mistake about it, there are a lot of landowners and outfitters that want complete and total control of Montanas wildlife. They will stop at NOTHING to gain that control...even trying to reclassify game animals as livestock.

The wedge is being driven by BS like trying to classifying wildlife as livestock, closed door meetings, and attacks on the publics wildlife at the legislature.

I can think of one group that has done all that...

 

[Eric Albus]

buzz...give me a break....the reason for "livestock" classification is that the Dept., or the Feds., would have to be RESPONSIBLE for them....when they are "wild" they can run about "willy-nilly" with nobody responsible for them...If my livestock gets out on the road and you run into it, I am responsible for damages to you and your car....if you hit one of "our elk/deer/free range buffalo....you are s.o.l....your problem.....and it would not turn over management to the Dept. of Livestock...it would turn management over to FWP or the Fed, whomever took ownership of said shaggy beasties...the DoL does not tell me how to run my cows....

"a lot of landowners/outfitters want complete control of Mt's wildlife".....I am one of each, and do not feel that way...talk about fear mongering and causing hatred and disention in the ranks....all that most of us landowners/outfitters want to see is biological managment of the deer/elk....do you ever hear anyone from the landowner/outfitter side of the fence complaing about Big Horn Sheep management? How about Mnt. Goats?...Moose?...Elk/deer in permit areas?...funny...I have never heard anyone complain, except that they can not draw a tag..because the Dept. does a wonderful job, especially w/ Big Horn Sheep...Mt. is the envy of the world because of our Sheep. Us "greedy landowner/outfitter" types just want to see the same kind of managment w/ deer/elk, then you would see more access....I know that here in Reg. 6 there is no access issue in area 652(mule deer permit area)....wonder why? could it be 'cause the public land looks just like the private?...what a concept.