Montana - Time to Shake it Up?

[Ben Lamb]

This is only my personal opinion on the matter and in no way reflects what any organization or group thinks.

Randy is spot on. Regardless of how you feel about the administration, they are the ones in charge and you can either figure out a way to work within their process or you can sit on the outside complaining and potentially lose everything. Right now, that process highly favors early engagement on issues like season setting, etc. It also favors those who take the time to develop a relationship with their commissioner and others in the decision making space.

The reality is that if we don't start solving these problems, politicians will continue to step in and do so as they see fertile ground to further the partisanship and move voters one way or another. Those kinds of swings do not benefit wildlife.

What does benefit wildlife is when hunters, outfitters, landowners and even the folks who don't hunt or fish, are brought together to have adult conversations about how to allocate the resource and manage it in a sustainable way. The CAC's are probably the best way to accomplish this, but they need to be given authority to advance solutions within a consensus model, or at least with a super-majority vote.

We have a director who is looking to shake things up and the common thread through the new rules, regulations and processes have been to empower local control and citizen involvement in the allocation discussion. The changes within the agency to alter how biologists are presenting data has been contentious, but it seems to be helping in reducing the temperature in discussions with landowners and outfitters (outside of the sound bytes & knee-jerk reactions).

The commission is still very much a work in progress, as evidenced by the last commission meeting. I know a lot of folks in R2 are working with Burrows (RCFWA, etc). That pays off in dividends, just like it did with Jana Waller. Lesley Robinson's R6 amendment was a direct result of citizen involvement. In fact, this commission just shut down mule deer doe hunting on about 1/3 of the state. I can guarantee you that the wildlife division is thinking pretty critically about how that happened and what the next steps are to regain some trust in those two regions.

So the tools are there to make significant changes. The question is are we going to go all Zoolander with it, or Tool Time?

 

[Raisin Bran]

5 year wait is pointless if you run a bonus point system instead of a preference let’s the odds be what they are

Fair Point!

 

[Raisin Bran]

How about we start with spreading out the non resident pressure and make their tag valid for one week of the 5 week general season. Split the non resident quota evenly through the 5 week general season. Have them apply for one of the five weeks they want to hunt. Make it valid from Saturday to the following Sunday. Make it so if they draw they can buy an archery permit that makes their tag valid for archery season. In the past opening day was packed around here with the pressure bleeding off until the end of the season. Now from second week in November to thanksgiving weekend it is packed. Would help spread out the pressure I think.

And…..Limit the total amount of NR tags to 75% of what it is now for going forward as a start.

 

[Raisin Bran]

5 year wait is pointless if you run a bonus point system instead of a preference let’s the odds be what they are

Actually, do away with the points and preference. Go back to old school lottery draw.

 

[SAJ-99]

@Ben Lamb given your experience, you have seen a lot of things succeed and fail in Helena. I assume there will be all kinds of wild ideas thrown out on this board. It is kind of the MO for social media. But there may be good ones too. I know some things have to be done through the legislature and some can go through the commission. Is there a generic set of guiding principals where people can use their brains to check the reasonableness before they hit the "Post" button.

 

[daltrix99]

The way I look at it, FWP is our agency, it is our wildlife to be managed by Trustees. It's up to us to change the course.

Great post Randy, thanks for sharing your thoughts and being solution-focused. When you say 'us' above, are you including citizens? I would love to hear more from experienced advocates like yourself how a passionate resident hunter like myself can affect policy and management beyond writing letters to state politicians, etc.

I have taken part in a lot of local conservation non-profit work, and that seems to have some impact. I live in Missoula, am a third-generation Montanan with my family hailing from region 4 originally, and I have an undergraduate degree in Wildlife Biology. I no longer work in wildlife at all, but there has to be a more impactful way for a (relatively) informed, connected, and concerned citizen-hunter to be a part of the solution.

Any feedback or guidance from hunttalk members would be much appreciated!

 

[Ben Lamb]

@Ben Lamb given your experience, you have seen a lot of things succeed and fail in Helena. I assume there will be all kinds of wild ideas thrown out on this board. It is kind of the MO for social media. But there may be good ones too. I know some things have to be done through the legislature and some can go through the commission. Is there a generic set of guiding principals where people can use their brains to check the reasonableness before they hit the "Post" button.

In general: it's a freaking mess.

Title 87 is the section of MCA that governs Fish & Wildlife management in MT. It's also one of the most abused sections of code, with roughly 100 bills per session over the last 15 years or so. So it's messy and while there is no easy answer - you generally have to have someone who can help guide you through that mess.

Allocation issues: Season setting, permits versus licenses, quotas, etc all run through the commission. FWP does a good job noticing their Environmental Assessments & other documents so sign up for their alerts if you haven't already. FWP also sends a lot of emails. Like way too many. (And I think the world of Comm ed).

The number of ideas that are actually fresh and new is remarkably short, across the spectrum. Ground-truthing them before going public is always a great idea. Email your commissioners and/or regional staff and get to know them so you can bounce ideas off of them, then ask people you trust in the wildlife space.

By it's nature- wildlife management is messy due to the large number of trustees & stakeholders. The biggest problem I see if that we tend to isolate ourselves into our own bubbles rather than have difficult conversations with those we disagree with. If I could wave my magic wand, we'd be working on hunter/outfitter/landowner relations without the Government telling us what to think or do, and then we, together, move forward and inform the gov't what the stakeholders wish to see happen.

As far as vetting stuff before posting, ask yourself if the idea is punitive or seeks to place one interest ahead of another, then rethink the approach if not the policy. The less the controversy, the more likely you are to get that done.

 

[bigsky2]

To get clarity on why this happened, read over the Commissioner sent emails (bottom of attached link). Lane didn't want his name on proposing Mule Deer doe harvest on private only, so MOGA sent the request to Tabor. If Tabor "stayed in his lane", it probably didn't get done. I suspect that happening in a lot of those amendments. MOGA even pointed out there didn't appear to be a way for members of the general public to get ideas in front of the public for comment. They should get kudos for pointing that out that the commission is generally an organizational mess. I will warn that it appears since losing the wolf case that required transparency, the commissioners have learned to avoid sending emails so they don't have to be made public. So if you send an email to a commissioner and don't get a response, this might be why. Cebull even got a separate phone for Commission use. Number is in the email...LOL.

Fish And Wildlife Commission Meeting: December 14, 2023 | Montana FWP

Fish and Wildlife Commission Meeting: December 14, 2023

fwp.mt.gov

The idea of different regional managements is great. One general warning is that once someone has power, they generally will be against giving it up. With 30+ years of experience, you well know that MT will ignore public comments, ballot initiatives, and even court directives if it suits them. If you want elected Commissioners, you have something like 13months until the next legislative session? You need to find someone willing to sponsor the idea and build support. Hence my idea of trying to partner with MOGA rather than butting heads. It doesn't get done without their support.

Ben Lamb is the expert on Helena here, but I certainly like the idea of trying something new. Most major changes get accomplished through compromise of the various interest groups.

After looking through those e-mails, I guess I shouldn't feel bad about the commissioners never responding to my e-mails (to be fair, Commissioner Brooke actually did reply to me last week). It's fairly alarming how little they are choosing to engage with the public.

 

[SAJ-99]

How about we start with spreading out the non resident pressure and make their tag valid for one week of the 5 week general season. Split the non resident quota evenly through the 5 week general season. Have them apply for one of the five weeks they want to hunt. Make it valid from Saturday to the following Sunday. Make it so if they draw they can buy an archery permit that makes their tag valid for archery season. In the past opening day was packed around here with the pressure bleeding off until the end of the season. Now from second week in November to thanksgiving weekend it is packed. Would help spread out the pressure I think.

I think @Eric Albus had this same idea a while back. Maybe he could give insight into the outfitter view. It falls into my general view of trying to distribute hunting pressure over time/space. Not sure why it is just NRs though. It probably doesn't have a huge impact on revenue, which some other ideas definitely will.

I think a few things that could be addressed.
- making Moose sheep Goat OIL
- Eliminating NR combo tag and splitting them into two
- Making all hunters pick a region for deer

It's fairly alarming how little they are choosing to engage with the public.

It is going to get worse because they have to post all the sent emails publicly (or they are supposed to). The commission doesn't like transparency. Maybe it's human nature when you are criticized from all sides.

 

[Raisin Bran]

After looking through those e-mails, I guess I shouldn't feel bad about the commissioners never responding to my e-mails (to be fair, Commissioner Brooke actually did reply to me last week). It's fairly alarming how little they are choosing to engage with the public.

I agree. There needs to be some etiquette classes required and accountability held to all public elected officials in answering the people back that they work for.

 

[brockel]

I think @Eric Albus had this same idea a while back. Maybe he could give insight into the outfitter view. It falls into my general view of trying to distribute hunting pressure over time/space. Not sure why it is just NRs though. It probably doesn't have a huge impact on revenue, which some other ideas definitely will.

I think a few things that could be addressed.
- making Moose sheep Goat OIL
- Eliminating NR combo tag and splitting them into two
- Making all hunters pick a region for deer


It is going to get worse because they have to post all the sent emails publicly (or they are supposed to). The commission doesn't like transparency. Maybe it's human nature when you are criticized from all sides.

I mentioned just NR because it’s an easier sell to the residents to get behind. Just wait till this next year when most of the hunting public finds out their mule deer doe tag isn’t good on public land.

 

[DFS]

I mentioned just NR because it’s an easier sell to the residents to get behind. Just wait till this next year when most of the hunting public finds out their mule deer doe tag isn’t good on public land.

I’ve already heard it from some local guys. People are funny.

 

[Nameless Range]

It is going to get worse because they have to post all the sent emails publicly (or they are supposed to). The commission doesn't like transparency. Maybe it's human nature when you are criticized from all sides.

Montana's right to know laws and right to participate laws exist for a reason, and feet should be held to the fire to make sure they are adhered to. I've seen library board meetings that were more professional than our wildlife commission meetings. and I've seen library board members take their roles more seriously too.

Now, to be a Commissioner on this board is nothing short of a full-time job. It should be. I get the sense that every one of em is pretty "well-to-do", but these are essentially unpaid volunteer public positions. Is there a sweet spot, that recognizes that the scope of being a commissioner in Montana is enormous, and a way to "professionalize" those roles? The good old days of Rancher Bob doing right by his neighbors as a commissioner is long gone. As was mentioned in a different thread, we saw commissioners exhibit a lack of understanding of how bonus points work. That just shouldn't happen. I have no doubt they are overwhelmed with both the decision making and the correspondence and wonder if there is a system or framework that could be put in place ( assistants, more dedicated staff, all comments through some portal) to allow them to more efficiently perform their duties, but also maintain a high level of transparency. I know the Commission has a coordinator, and maybe it isn't an issue, but reading through those emails makes me think it could be.

Otherwise it will just feed distrust, bring forward another instance of them violating the law, and send them to another training taking up time that could otherwise be spent doing good work.

 

[cgasner1]

I mentioned just NR because it’s an easier sell to the residents to get behind. Just wait till this next year when most of the hunting public finds out their mule deer doe tag isn’t good on public land.

This battle will be won with baby steps you’ll never cut the head of the snake. Starting with non residents is a baby step but it’s forward progress. No doe hunting and the changes in region 4 were also baby steps. But I also feel like it’s a Christmas miracle that it got thru. This would be a very very lo mg process but and baby step would have a huge impact. My worry is when the ship does start to correct people will think enough has been done and the fight will be that much harder for the next baby step

 

[TOGIE]

Now, to be a Commissioner on this board is nothing short of a full-time job. It should be. I get the sense that every one of em is pretty "well-to-do", but these are essentially unpaid volunteer public positions. Is there a sweet spot, that recognizes that the scope of being a commissioner in Montana is enormous, and a way to "professionalize" those roles? The good old days of Rancher Bob doing right by his neighbors as a commissioner is long gone. As was mentioned in a different thread, we saw commissioners exhibit a lack of understanding of how bonus points work. That just shouldn't happen. I have no doubt they are overwhelmed with both the decision making and the correspondence and wonder if there is a system or framework that could be put in place ( assistants, more dedicated staff, all comments through some portal) to allow them to more efficiently perform their duties, but also maintain a high level of transparency. I know the Commission has a coordinator, and maybe it isn't an issue, but reading through those emails makes me think it could be.

Otherwise it will just feed distrust, bring forward another instance of them violating the law, and send them to another training taking up time that could otherwise be spent doing good work.

this is a big problem for the cpw commission too, especially so since they merged with parks. I suspect it's a problem on quite a few wildlife boards.

i think you bring up a great point that many states should address and the problems stemming from them can go in many directions.

it's wildly problematic when commissioners who have ignorance on many of the topics they have immense power over ignore their professional staff in their recommendations on those topics.

super difficult on how to solve that.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Montana's right to know laws and right to participate laws exist for a reason, and feet should be held to the fire to make sure they are adhered to. I've seen library board meetings that were more professional than our wildlife commission meetings. and I've seen library board members take their roles more seriously too.

Now, to be a Commissioner on this board is nothing short of a full-time job. It should be. I get the sense that every one of em is pretty "well-to-do", but these are essentially unpaid volunteer public positions. Is there a sweet spot, that recognizes that the scope of being a commissioner in Montana is enormous, and a way to "professionalize" those roles? The good old days of Rancher Bob doing right by his neighbors as a commissioner is long gone. As was mentioned in a different thread, we saw commissioners exhibit a lack of understanding of how bonus points work. That just shouldn't happen. I have no doubt they are overwhelmed with both the decision making and the correspondence and wonder if there is a system or framework that could be put in place ( assistants, more dedicated staff, all comments through some portal) to allow them to more efficiently perform their duties, but also maintain a high level of transparency. I know the Commission has a coordinator, and maybe it isn't an issue, but reading through those emails makes me think it could be.

Otherwise it will just feed distrust, bring forward another instance of them violating the law, and send them to another training taking up time that could otherwise be spent doing good work.

It's an education issue more than anything. The bigger question is: who is going to step up and help the commission be better?

 

[Straight Arrow]

big problem for the cpw commission too, especially so since they merged with parks.

Other way around for Montana Fish & Game Commission, as the Parks & Recreation Board became separate from the Commission. Not that it really makes the job much easier.

 

[TOGIE]

Other way around for Montana Fish & Game Commission, as the Parks & Recreation Board became separate from the Commission. Not that it really makes the job much easier.

colorado has been through several iterations of merge and split. i'd really like to see it split again and codified as such in mother effing statute.

 

[brockel]

I’ve already heard it from some local guys. People are funny.

Told a local guy who’s family kills double digit does and his jaw about hit the floor. He was pissed

 

[SAJ-99]

Montana's right to know laws and right to participate laws exist for a reason, and feet should be held to the fire to make sure they are adhered to. I've seen library board meetings that were more professional than our wildlife commission meetings. and I've seen library board members take their roles more seriously too.

I am just trying to be pragmatic. The distrust exists for a reason. You had a ballot initiative to put marijuana tax revenues into habitat and then the legislature decided they didn't like the idea. Large groups of stakeholders came to a new agreement on how the funds should be used, sent it to the Governor's desk where he promptly vetoed it and then stuck it under a pile of papers until the session was over. That is still working its way through the courts. More recently, if I'm not mistake, I-193 barely died on an 8-8 tie vote when like 95% of the public comments were against it. The trend seems to be that some members of government seem to think they know better and democracy is a failed experiment. The laws can say whatever they want. If there are no consequences, you are just spinning your wheels. Most Montana hunters don't want to pay an extra $5 for a deer tag, so they sure as hell don't want to pay for a lawyer to sue the department. I would say Montana hunters have a better shot of getting change if they work with the system they have, despite the distaste it may leave. I would also tend to favor small victories to try to build some momentum. Constitutional changes are a big task. I will watch all of it with high interest.