MT FWP New Director

K

katqanna

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
1,695
Location
Bozeman, MT
Bullock announced that Martha Williams will be the new director of the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. She is from the University of Montana.

Martha Williams teaches Introduction to Environmental Law, Wildlife Law, Property I, Public Land and Natural Resources Law, Climate Law and is the Co-Director of the Land Use & Natural Resources Clinic. Professor Williams also co-supervises the Public Land and Resources Law Review and the Environmental Law Group. She joined the faculty at the law school after serving as the Deputy Solicitor Parks and Wildlife for the United States Department of the Interior where she oversaw legal issues and litigation for the National Park Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Professor Williams also served as Agency Legal Counsel for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, as well as policy analyst for the Environmental Quality Council, and clerk to the Honorable James Nelson of the Montana Supreme Court. Professor Williams received her B.A. from the University of Virginia and her J.D. with honors from the University of Montana School of Law.
Click to expand...
 
Tough part about letting the scientists do science is all the legislators that want to help them with their science-ing.
 
Legislators know best... or was that Momma knows best? Hope she is a good director.
 
I wonder what those clinics she taught (e.g. Western Watersheds Project Clinic) were all about.
 
Bulldog0156 said:
Tough part about letting the scientists do science is all the legislators that want to help them with their science-ing.
Click to expand...

Your comment made me think of this recent gem by Brenden:

“Maurier was a disaster,” said Sen. John Brenden, R-Scobey, a frequent critic of FWP. “They were running FWP out of the governor’s office.”
Click to expand...

While I won't defend Maurier at all, FWP is clearly much better being run by the legislature than the governor's office.

:rolleyes:
 
The problem with biologists who only have book learning is that they don't listen to reality.

I have asked the Dept. repeatedly, including Jeff Hagner, to manage Reg. 7 antelope like all the other Regions in the state. Breaking into smaller more areas, actually manage instead of blanket all of 700 into one area....so far, No Good.

Be interesting to see what a lawyer will do. Wonder if she hunts? Perhaps that should be a requirement of the position?
 
Eric Albus said:
Be interesting to see what a lawyer will do. Wonder if she hunts? Perhaps that should be a requirement of the position?
Click to expand...

I don't know if she hunts and I'm not sure it matters. She has worked for FWP & the feds in the past, and has expert knowledge on how the federal-state relationship works. That will be crucial in the coming years as congress and the incoming administration will seek to end conservation practices on public land as well as private. This is a good pick, IMO. Certainly not the traditional pick for director, but I'm excited to work with her.
 
"I don't know if she hunts and I'm not sure it matters".

Gotta' adamantly disagree with you. Gotta' pragmatically admit you may be right.............
 
Eric Albus said:
The problem with biologists who only have book learning is that they don't listen to reality.

I have asked the Dept. repeatedly, including Jeff Hagner, to manage Reg. 7 antelope like all the other Regions in the state. Breaking into smaller more areas, actually manage instead of blanket all of 700 into one area....so far, No Good.

Be interesting to see what a lawyer will do. Wonder if she hunts? Perhaps that should be a requirement of the position?
Click to expand...

Eric, You are so right about Reg 7 antelope
 
Eric Albus said:
The problem with biologists who only have book learning is that they don't listen to reality.

I have asked the Dept. repeatedly, including Jeff Hagner, to manage Reg. 7 antelope like all the other Regions in the state. Breaking into smaller more areas, actually manage instead of blanket all of 700 into one area....so far, No Good.


Be interesting to see what a lawyer will do. Wonder if she hunts? Perhaps that should be a requirement of the position?
Click to expand...


I Don't think that the problem is necessarily with the biologist at all. I Have a hard time believing they are much more than a pawn in the game. Does anyone possibly believe they would teach anything like we see going on in region 7 in school? Any time tags are issued region wide nothing is being "managed", the Fwp manages people only and even does poorly at that.
 
team, I agree with that.

tjones, I do not know that I would have asked that question had it been a man, on account that I would ignorantly assume that all MEN hunt....

Ben, I can agree that it may not matter.....and I hope it does not matter.

Is she anti-hunting? Maybe that would have been a better question, or would it matter?
 
I guess my question is if you split Reg. 7 in to multiple units, where do you put a new office? Miles City and Glasgow being the two? I can see the point of multiple units, but the logistics of opening more offices is probably the hindrance here.
 
I guess my question is if you split Reg. 7 in to multiple units, where do you put a new office?
Click to expand...
Why would you need a new office? The suggestion is to create more antelope hunting districts within FWP Region 7, not new regions. The other regions within Montana are comprised of "multiple units" (hunting districts) and are administrated out of one regional office.
 
Last edited:
Eric Albus said:
team, I agree with that.

tjones, I do not know that I would have asked that question had it been a man, on account that I would ignorantly assume that all MEN hunt....

Ben, I can agree that it may not matter.....and I hope it does not matter.

Is she anti-hunting? Maybe that would have been a better question, or would it matter?
Click to expand...



Eric, that last question absolutely is valid. To my knowledge, she is pro-hunting. FWP's revenue stream is directly tied to the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, any director has to recognize that and support the activities that fund their agency otherwise they wouldn't last long at all.
 
2ski said:
I guess my question is if you split Reg. 7 in to multiple units, where do you put a new office? Miles City and Glasgow being the two? I can see the point of multiple units, but the logistics of opening more offices is probably the hindrance here.
Click to expand...

2ski. All regions are split into districts or units. In the case of doe deer and antelope tags have in the past been allocated region wide. No sideboards at all. Now region 7 encompasses a huge chunk of the state. When thousands of tags are issued not one thing is keeping every hunter from showing up in broadus, circle or baker to hunt. I believe that an area the size of region 7 in order to be managed needs a population count In each district and tags issued for that district accordingly. I Would like to see deer doe tags taken one step further and be primarily issued for private land in the districts that warrant doe tags
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cheeser
Press Release February 7, 2024 Legal action launched to protect wolves in northern Rocky Mountains
Replies
1
Views
251
bayoublaster7527
B
Hammsolo
Washington Wolf Policy Comments
Replies
2
Views
696
bigwhale
B
elkduds
CPW Roundtable official summary for 7/22/23 meeting
Replies
9
Views
893
CptCasual
C
cheeser
Wisconsin legislators press DNR board appointees on hunting wolves, cranes
Replies
17
Views
1K
Nicoli7153
N
Khunter
History of public lands
Replies
0
Views
683
Khunter
Khunter
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,111
Messages
1,947,519
Members
35,033
Latest member
Leejones

Share this page

Back
Top