A reader from eastern Montana recently sent me some interesting information from the Montana Walleye Unlimited site about the Fort Peck Hatchery, it’s conception, who was involved; more insight on why the fishing community could get hosed on licensing fees.
In my previous rants:
WU’s version of the Fort Peck Hatchery issue helps shorten the suspect list for the funding fiasco down to an all to familiar party; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
The earmarks of MFWP operations are written all over the proceedings, meetings set where no one has a prayer of getting to them, policy changes for their convenience, finger pointing when under fire, management directives based on opinions, incomplete data not fact, and finally- passing the buck on to taxpayer to clean up the mess.
In all fairness, one can’t really blame WU for asking for a share of fed tax (Wallop/Breaux) money to fund Fort Peck, money that has typically been earmarked for trout hatchery operations, MFWP opinion was that they could fund Fort Peck with the Warm Water Species tag alone. That has proved false, Warm Water Species tag sales have in fact, declined since their inception.
While some of WU’s tactics appear a little sketchy, like pushing for Walleye native species status, MFWP policy puts them to shame by hanging the Walleye camp and the rest of us out to dry as a result of poor planning, fact finding, and budget forecasting.
I think WU was on to something with the native species thing. MFWP really didn’t have much to say about it. They left that to Trout Unlimited and the American Fisheries Society, organizations with perhaps more science based knowledge? You have to wonder if MFWP would have bought into it if they had not thrown in the red flag.
After initially bashing WU, I somewhat understand their position after being jilted by MFWP. I still don’t buy into SB 425 for no other reason than MFWP needs to be held accountable for their decision making instead of passing it on to the taxpayers. I realize this won’t help WU get funding for Fort Peck, maybe MFWP can franchise a few Walleye diners to make up the budget shortfall.
I might be swayed a little more if they would actually raise Large and Smallmouth Bass and actually truck them over here to some of the lakes in western Montana.
The next hearing is scheduled for 3/31/09. You can reach members of the Fish Wildlife and Parks committee here. Click member names for contact info.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I thought the following “fact information” would be helpful for all interested persons. Update to your statement that “water species tags sales in fact have declined.” The latest fiscal note is that close to $300,000 was collected from the warm water stamp in 2008 which is about a $78,000 increase over 2007 sales.
HISTORY OF THE FORT PECK HATCHERY BILL:
I was the Walleyes Unlimited of Montana State President in 1999 when the hatchery bill was passed and I have remained highly involved with all subject matter related to the hatchery since that time. The inspiration for “a warmwater fish hatchery located at Fort Peck Lake†was originated by “The Citizens for a Fort Peck Hatchery†which is comprised of anglers and businesses through out Montana. This diverse assemblage realized that for years Fort Peck Lake and numerous other Montana warmwater lakes and reservoirs had been under-stocked because of the limitations of the number and species of sport fish and forage fish that could be raised in the only warmwater fish hatchery located at Miles City. These limited resources resulted in poor angler catch rates, and poor quality sport fish which was due to insufficient quantity and quality of forage fish. This situation was negatively impacting businesses that relied on sport fishing and other outdoor related activities for their livelihood. Whenever anglers and businesses asked what could be done to improve the fisheries condition, FWP biologists always responded that warmwater fishing would remain poor until there was an additional warmwater fish hatchery to supplement the Miles City Hatchery. The citizens group contacted WUM and asked that we carry the hatchery bill for them. The legislative intent of the bill was to raise only warmwater sport fish and forage fish, chinook salmon and pallid sturgeon which is an endangered fish.
REASON FOR INSUFFICIENT O&M FUNDS FROM THE WARMWATER STAMP:
The hatchery design that the citizens group envisioned was for a much smaller and basic needs building, indoor egg incubating equipment and outdoor rearing ponds only, and did not include all the additional egg incubating equipment, rearing tanks and raceways, nor the lavish building that is incorporated in this hatchery. Warmwater fish rearing primarily requires egg incubating equipment and outdoor rearing ponds only, not concrete raceways and other equipment that is in the facility which is exclusively for coldwater fish rearing needs. The cost for the citizens envisioned hatchery was estimated at between 12 and 14 million dollars and the annual operating and maintenance (O&M) cost was estimated at $200,000 per year. But with the inclusion of all the coldwater fish equipment the final cost was over 22 million dollars which increased the O&M to over $400,000 per year. Gary Bertellotti was the Montana FWP hatchery manager at the time that the Fort Peck Hatchery was being designed and held that position through the completion of the hatchery. In his records at the FWP office in Helena, there are emails and correspondence between him and the Corp of Engineers attesting that FWP had full control of the design and construction for the current facility and that Corp of Engineers built the hatchery in compliance with his design instructions. The latest fiscal note confirms that the warmwater stamp generated close to $300,000 in 2008. Therefore, had the hatchery been built to the design that was envisioned by the citizens group the warmwater stamp would have been more than sufficient to cover the annual O&M cost for the citizens envisioned hatchery. This is clear evidence that WUM did not have control of nor design the hatchery but continues to be blamed for the high O&M cost. No matter who is at fault, this state-of-the-art multispecies hatchery is reality and will be here for many years to serve a wide variety of fish stocking needs and has to be funded adequately.
HOW IS THE O&M FUNDED FOR THE OTHER STATE HATCHERIES:
The O&M for the eight coldwater fish hatcheries and the Miles City hatchery are funded from two sources: (1)general fishing license funds; ALL anglers that fish Montana waters pay this fee. (2)Wallop-Breaux funds; this is a federal tax that ALL sportspersons pay on a wide variety of outdoor recreation products that range from firearms and ammunition to boats and boat motors, fish finders, rods and reels, hip waders, etc.
Note: Every year there is Wallop-Breaux funds left over after paying for the hatcheries O&M. FWP puts the left over funds into their general fund, and based on a legislative audit done last fall on FWP’s general fund, the conclusion was; distribution of the remaining Wallop-Breaux funds in essence is very difficult to track.
SO WHAT IS THE SQUABBLE FROM TU ABOUT SENATE BILL 425:
I have been one of the persons representing WUM at the Anglers Forum since 1997. This forum meets twice a year and is made up of various sportsman organizations from around Montana and includes TU. TU is on record as being opposed to any hatchery operations. Furthermore, they are on record as being adamantly against raising trout in the Fort Peck Hatchery for reasons that are not totally related to this funding issue. From what I am told, they are also spreading the unfounded myth that if Wallop-Breaux and general license funds are used for Fort Peck O&M that it will take away funding from existing coldwater projects, and that is unsubstantiated. There are numerous coldwater projects that are already guaranteed funding every year such as Future Fisheries, etc. and these projects have funding earmarks from so many different sources that it is unbelievable. Who pays for these earmarked projects, all sportspersons that fish Montana waters. All sportspersons pay the Wallop-Breaux tax and general fishing license fee. Therefore it is very clear that these funds ARE NOT for the exclusive purpose to fund only Montana coldwater projects and coldwater hatcheries! I personally know many TU members that are not in agreement with TU’s point of view. Furthermore, many sportspersons opinion is “it is a fish hatchery and should be maximized for the benefit of all Montana waters and sportspersons.â€
CONCLUSION:
Amendments in the bill authorizes FWP to raise any species of coldwater fish and that is what FWP wanted and yet it guarantees that propagation of warmwater species fish remains the priority and that FWP shall maximize production of warmwater to the greatest extend possible. Senate Bill 425 is a win-win situation for all sportspersons! Warmwater anglers are guaranteed maximum warmwater fish production and that warmwater fish remain the hatchery production priority and FWP receives authority to raise coldwater fish that in turn increases benefits for coldwater anglers. In addition, this bill does not increase sportspersons license fees or outdoor recreation products taxes which is one of the primary goals of all legislators and the governor this session. This bill equitably funds the Fort Peck Hatchery using identical funding authority that the other Montana hatcheries receive. Most importantly, passage of this bill is for our future generation of Montanan’s which is our children! The old saying is “the family that fishes together stays together.†When families recreate together in our great Montana outdoors studies show that the children are less likely to get involved in using drugs and tobacco products and they become more productive citizens.
My source of information on the Warm Water Species stamp and its current funding power at Fort Peck comes from the Legislative Audit Request 09L-2733, August, 2008, page 5.
Maybe a better way to have put it is that tag funding is more or less hanging in there but the cost of operation has risen beyond the ability of the stamp to provide proper funding . Either way the outcome is the same, the value of the Warm Water stamp as a funding tool has diminished since its inception.