Nesvik to head USFWS
General Topic
Only months after retiring as director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Brian Nesvik has been picked by President Donald Trump to head the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
For the WY guys - this seems to be a great development for hunters, but I don't know enough about him. But if he shuts down the illegal wolf dumping in CO and delists grizzlies and wolves, it would be a great start.
Thoughts?
I hope wolves are delisted and there are hunting seasons. However Tampon Tim will not allow that to happen in Mn.
Lou,
"But if he shuts down the illegal wolf dumping in CO and delists grizzlies and wolves, it would be a great start."
Haven't grizzlies and wolves been delisted before, and a highly educated judge well versed in wilidlife biology blocked it?
Activist judges who only listen to one side. This may need to go to SCOTUS, because we are in an era where one highly biased judge can effectively shut down an entire government agency and overrule their highly qualified biologists and scientists.
At the very least, they can shut down Colorado and force them to follow the law before any more wolves are dumped, and may likely end it altogether. Burgum's team is already being lobbied to do just that.
As a Wyoming guy I have mixed feelings. He definitely understands and knows the issues that WY, ID, and MT are facing with grizzly bears. I have no doubt that he will move quickly on this issue and the USFWS will once again delist the bears. Will it hold up in court? So far both the issues that have previously stopped dleisting (first one was climate change killing pine trees, second one was genetic isolation) have been fixed. The pine trees have pretty much died and the bears simply switched food sources. For genetic isolation issues the states are now trading problem bears with each other. WY and MT are shipping bears back and fourth. I think it is supposed to be 2 bears each every year. A problem bear in Glacier Area will be brought down to Yellowstone area and in exchange a southern bear will go north. This ensures that genetic are being mixed and according to our bear experts it will happen at a rate much higher and faster than natural connectivity between the 2. That does not mean that the enviros will not come up with a new barrier. They already tried when the Biden admin decided to list all the bears in the lower 48 as a single population. Breaking that back up into sub populations will be huge. He will absolutely be an advocate for delisting wolves in the lower 48 as well and will likely make life hard on the Colorado Experiment.
I feel there will be a more friendly shift towards import of animals and trophy from otherwise legal hunts.
Is he the best guy for the job? NO! Is he way better than we have had? Absolutely.
I just hope he has a bit of a spine and does what is right. At times he has proven himself to weak to stand up against public pressure.
I also don't know enough about him. What I have seen so far looks good.
Well written Jaquomo....wack job judges come up with all kinds of ridiculous rulings on subjects they know nothing about...
WYOelker,
Just to clarify, you don't have mixed emotions about Nesvik, you have mixed emotions as to whether delisting will be successful. Is that correct?
I have a friend who is familiar with Nesvik. He was a C.O. in his part of WY. He said his opinion of Nesvik was that he was a solid dude. I don't know anything other than I like to think that someone with Nesvik's background, who understands the situation in the mountain states in dealing with these large predators, has to be an overall positive for doing what is biologically sound and that is managing wolves and grizzlies in their distinct populations in the lower 48.
Not a fan of Mr. Nesvik, I had several arguments with him at BOW meetings. During his tenure at G&F he refused to curtail mule deer licenses, keeping it general licenses for residents (anyone can buy one) and that is one of the main reasons you cannot find many good mule deer unless you are on private land or in the rugged mountains of western Wy. Also during the horrible winter 2 years ago not an ounce of feed was put out for thousands of head of wildlife that starved to death, many next to roads. An incredible list of excuses but bottom line they died awful deaths as vehicles rolled by at 20 yards, all under the leadership of Mr. Nesvik, I hope does good, but not counting on it.........Mike
Sounds like he prefers hands-off management; probably the right call from a biological/epidemiological perspective… Nature isn’t cruel— that implies malicious intent— but she sure can be Brutally Indifferent.
Just remember that saying that it’s “cruel” to let some animals starve out is really no different than saying that hunting is a “cruel” practice. If you want to see biologically sound management, you need to be prepared to see some things happening which don’t feel very good.
We are hoping that this guy will embrace biologically sound management of predators, so we can’t ask him to do otherwise for prey species..
Bowfreak,
I am certain he will move quickly to delist and give Manamgment to the states on bears and wolves. I also feel like he will have a better game plan and set up to prevent a silly lawsuit from winning.
My concerns are mainly around his time on the WY wildlife task force. It was supposed to be a public advisory group. But he was a voting member on the group and represented the Game and Fish. I felt he should have been there as advisory only. To answer question etc. not to impose will… For example he they were trying to force mule deer and whitetail hunting to separate. Despite pretty overwhelming public opposition. He felt it would generate new revenue…
I do feel he is better than anyone else we have had the last 12 years.
Thanks for the clarification. It seems based on the comments that he is not perfect but could be a major upgrade at USFWS.
He’s like everyone else that’s in a position of authority. He’s not going to please everyone.
I don’t know one thing about Wyoming wildlife management goals. What I do know is separating whitetail and mule deer to separate seasons is a must for better management. It’s huge and the first step in better managing both species. Separate seasons allows for better control of harvests, Better control of participation, Etc….
That might not be the perfect fit or even the right answer. But, there’s more reasons to do besides money.
Anyways, it’s an improvement. Anything resembling conservation far out weighs preservation concerning game animal populations.
Separating whitetail and mule deer licenses doesn't do one thing for management because without limiting licenses for mule deer you haven't accomplished anything. Every resident can get tags over the counter and the slaughter continues (gotta have a 2 pt for sausage, but how come there are no good bucks anymore ?). Whitetails are managed by landowners because they are almost all on private property except in the Black Hills. The Wy G&F will sell every license it possibly can for general deer. CASH is king Wy G&F. We already have separate deer seasons on the same license. The problem is that selfish people want to get 2 bucks every year, a muley and a whitetail, or 2 whitetails (an additional whitetail tag). One buck deer per year per person should be enough for anyone, but WG&F will happily issue unlimited general licenses for CASH. Wy G&F has studied the problem to death and just can't figure it out as they continue to sell unlimited licenses. Overhunting, drought, predators, WDOT and CWD are all contributing factors. Nesvik is directly responsible for a part of this problem........Mike
maybe polar bears will be on his agenda?
Muleysareking,
I am not aware of the mule deer/whitetail issues in WY but what you are saying sure does make a lot of sense. As a NR it seems there is no cost too high for WY game and fish and they will stick it to the NR whenever they can for money. It makes sense they don't want to give up the extra few bucks for OTC resident general deer.
What is the population density for Whitetails on Private?? Because if it’s like just about everywhere else, they probably do need thinning out, but that’s a Doe Tag project.
I can’t fault the agency for finding ways to fund itself any more than I can fault a landowner for wanting to be able to go out back and get a couple of deer for the freezer, but generally speaking, it seems if there are enough deer about to support taking more than one/hunter/year, then at least one of them should be a doe….
The one caveat there being that there’s a study out which suggests that removing 40% of bucks each year for about 20 years would really help get CWD transmission reduced, so maybe they’re looking at that angle??
Damn. Some days, you’d think a person could make a full-time job out of examining the data and they’d STILL have to make some judgment calls….
I'm guessing I wont agree with everything he does but he is at least pro-hunting. I attended some federal and state wildlife conferences through work in the 90's and even then a lot of the people moving up the ranks were non or sorta anti hunting. I'll take what we can get.
