While the details are of course vague in the bills official description, one thing is now certain; funding shortfalls for the Fort Peck Walleye Hatchery are now secured by “REVENUE IN THE GENERAL LICENSE ACCOUNT OR any FEDERAL funding available to the department”.
And how do you interpret that? I think I hear the cash registers ringing up the added cost of your Montana fishing license unless of course the Feds want to pitch in, a hatchery operation stimulus package maybe? Gov. Schweitzer has said he won’t allow any fee increases but that’s the stuff that slides off politicians like an egg on a teflon skillet.
Funding was previously provided by the Warm Water Species Stamp, an optional stamp for those who want to fish for warm water species even if there isn’t a Walleye within two hundred miles. FWP has a little backgrounder here explaining the rationale behind the increased funding needs. It’s a little disingenuous and convoluted if I am interpreting what’s between the lines right. But it’s an easier sell than say, giving the Walleye “native fish” status.
First, we build a huge Fed funded hatchery and run it at half capacity (which is all Walleye production) because that’s all we can afford with funding from the Warm Water Species Stamp. I wonder how many people really cared to buy those optional stamps? The “hundreds of children and families” (it’s almost a Bushism but not quite) in northeastern Montana? They would have gotten more money if their cows could fish. Not that I would want to see anyone go without fishing opportunities but if we didn’t need the capacity of a 22 million dollar facility why didn’t we just build one half the size for 10 million?
And then, add this little clause which the 1999 legislature did (the authors of this funding fiasco) that says you can’t raise anything else in it as part of the deal, just warm water species- Walleye. Hmm. So, it’s almost like a future funding clause? Hey, if the warm water stamp doesn’t work out we’ll just make everyone in the state pay for the Walleye hatchery somewhere down the road and throw them a bone; they can have 750,000 cold water species that will never see anything resembling a true cold water river, stream or lake.
So, what it boils down to is that everyone in the western half of Montana is paying for the Walleye and the Walleye hatchery for the eastern half of the state because there are more cows there than there are wallets. I almost get the feeling that I am subsidizing some kind of Walleye business venture.
Makes you wonder that even though “we’re wasting thousands of dollars more in gasoline to truck fish” if MFWP would be more than willing to spread the Walleye gospel out west to make us feel like we’re getting a better deal? Thanks, but no thanks- keep your Walleye over east. If you want me to feel better about paying for eastern Montana’s Walleye hatchery have them raise a few hundred thousand more Small and Largemouth Bass and truck them out here to the Clark Fork and the Flathead and dump them in there with their brothers and sisters who are already sharing the rivers with the “endangered” Westslope Cutthroat and Bull trout.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Comments from E.MT
I accidentally nuked the readers comment- no, it wasn’t intentional even though I was getting flamed!
The stamp generated almost $300,000 in 2008 so we are only looking at needing about $200,000 from the Wallop/Breaux Federal Fund. This fund had $2 million left from the past three years and SB 425 will not affect funding for the other hatcheries.
(In reference to MFWP jacking up license fees )
Point taken and to further prove that.
http://www.montanawalleyesunlimited.net/news.htm
This is simple, all fishing license fees should pay for all hatchery funding.
It should be. The problem is that you have Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks playing loose with facts and figures and just how big of hatchery they need in the first place. And when the costs blow up in their face they want us to pay more to clean up their mess.
The point being that we shouldn’t be legislating more bills and adding more costs to fishing because MFWP can’t come up with a budget or make sound financial decisions on projects like the hatchery at Fort Peck.
Good point.
I agree with this opinion entirely, i’m sure we won’t get them to admit it but it won’t do any good to either.
Something to add to your point should be that all fisherman will gain regardless what type of spots you like on your fish by running this hatchery at full capacity. Everybody gains from this hatchery producing fish, we all will have to pay the extra $1.00 when we purchase our fishing licences.
Hopefully we will see something for the additional money but so far it doesn’t look like we have, at least not in the western half of the state. The initial plan for Fort Peck said there was to be some Large and Smallmouth Bass production but so far that has not been the case. The only thing being produced in significant numbers is Walleye and they are going into reservoirs mostly along the highline.
If they actually kick out a significant amount of Bass annually and do some serious stocking in the lakes and ponds in the western part of the state (without whining about transporting the fish and adding another $1 onto the license to get them over here) I’d clam up.
As for the Walleye, they can have all they want; east of the divide and out of the river systems. Till someone actually comes up with credible evidence that they are native they should be treated as an invasive non-native species.
1. Walleye is more a native fish to Montana than are Brown or Rainbow trout. Walleye are native to the Missouri river at least to Fort Benton. Rainbow and Brown trout are not native to North America.
2. The Fort Peck hatchery was overbuilt at FWP directions. The hatchery that was requested to be built could have been supported by the warm water stamp, but because of all the extras, can’t.
3. The Warm water stamp exempted Canyon Ferry, Hauser, and Holter lakes. Those are very popular walleye fishing destinations.
4. There are 11 cold water hatcheries in Montana and now with Fort Peck there are two warm water hatcheries.
5. I’ve fished central and southwest Montana for over 35 years. The rivers are now too crowded with the wrong kind of people to be enjoyable, so do most of my fishing on lakes. People fishing for walleye lessen the pressure on rivers and fishing opportunities should be made available for that reason alone.
Joe,
What’s your source on Walleye being native up to Fort Benton on the Missouri? Lewis and Clark, who were the first to document native species on the upper Missouri do not mention Walleye in Montana. They do mention catching Sauger near Loma in June, 1806. They also caught Goldeye and shortly thereafter, near the Great Falls; they caught native Cutthroat trout.
I didn’t intend to restart the debate covered when SB15 was being considered. South & North Dakota both consider walleye to be native and it doesn’t take much to believe that if so, they would have moved into Montana also. There are no natural barriers on the Missouri River till Fort Benton.
My real intention was to point out the bias when the writer said walleye should be treated as an invasive specieshttp://www.northern.edu/natsource/FISH/Walley1.htm
(Sorry, I didn’t finish before submitting)
My real intention was to point out the bias when the writer said walleye should be treated as an invasive species but ignored that Brown and Rainbow Trout are known to be non-native.
I think all fishing opportunities out to be enhanced and if that means more walleye hatchery funding, so be it. Trout fishing gets its share of resources now its time for other species. It helps all fishermen if only to lower the pressure on other areas.
Finally, I’m not sure what the writer’s several reference to cows is about but it feels like a bit of a put down. If he’s never spent time in Eastern Montana, he should do so. It’s a lot different from Western Montana and in a lot of ways nicer.
By invasive I meant that Walleye are more aggressive feeders than their trout counterparts (Brown and Rainbow). Both will sometimes go predator but more often feed on smaller aquatic insects. They are less likely to over run existing populations (not always) compared to Walleye, Bass, or Pike.
No put down intended for eastern Montana, I have been there many times and I enjoy the people and the country. I was just making a point that, compared to western Montana, livestock still outnumbers the human population.
After watching how this bill came about, the path it took and the information that came to light in the process I would be much more likely to support a funding bill as long as Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks pulls it out of existing budget funds and not my wallet. They made the calls on the size of the hatchery and the the budget necessary to operate it- now they can figure out how to make it work without having us bail them out.
And, I am not opposed to Walleye or Walleye Unlimited. I think they got left alone to swing on the end of the rope by MFWP when things started getting ugly for them. If MFWP can’t come up with something on their own I think they are going to be answering to all of us, not just one part of the fishing demographic.
{ 2 trackbacks }