Bozeman Area Round Table

[timmy]

I say we burn it down. Let’s hit rock bottom!!

 

[Nameless Range]

It seems for the next few years the one place the public may have any sort of ability to at the very least, symbolize checks and balances, would be in the form of a citizen's initiative.

Outside of that, as the expression regarding the problem of infinite regress goes, "It's politicians all the way down", or was it turtles?

 

[brocksw]

The Commission is not designed to be a political entity. It is supposed to be made up of citizens from a range of backgrounds that reflect a cross section of stakeholders in Montana, to ensure representation by myriad public interests in decision making. They are widely used and have a long history of pretty successful input into wildlife management. The recent political shenanigans are the brain child of our new Gov.

Remove the Commission, and then you really do have no other avenue for citizen input in management decisions except via politicians. That only exacerbates the politicization IMO.

I understand what it's supposed to be, but it is not that anymore and will not be that all the way up to this administration's very last day. If the next administrations are of the same political affiliation then this will continue to happen. With the way they are nationalizing elections, I don't think its out of the realm of possibility to see a GG type administration for the next couple terms. The FWP is a political body. Doesn't matter that it wasn't 10 years ago...it is now and will be for the foreseeable future with no guarantee that will return to an unbiased and objective body.

I disagree. The FWP is fully equipped to handle public comment and that should be the primary avenue in which the public uses its voice on wildlife issues. One thing the ND Game and Fish does incredibly well, is listen to public input and weigh that social variable with the biological to make decisions.

 

[The Hedgehog]

These meet and greets are slimy window dressings. They have been for many years. Don't think for a second that the general public opinion matters. There is not little concern for public land deer/elk management - it's all about how elected officials can assist their important constituents squeeze every last dollar out of the resource. Nobody cares about your success rate and hunting experiences on public land. Get out your wallet if you're not happy. Or, pal up to your own politician and get into the "fight."

 

[Ben Lamb]

In my opinion...Those days are over. Everything is being politicized now and these types of bodies are particularly vulnerable to that politicization.

This is a very fair point.

So we play that game.

 

[brocksw]

This is a very fair point.

So we play that game.

But is that the long term answer? Or does that just put us back in the same position we're in now in 3 or 4 terms, when a presumably democratic administration hands the reins back over to the a republican one? We'd come full circle at that point.

I'd support finding long term solutions now to avoid doing this every time there's a change of color at the Governors office.

 

[brocksw]

1. Double the price of Resident tags. Use that extra money as a depredation/damage fund for private land owners.
2. Establish trusted and transparent population counts
3. Redo the objectives....objectively
4. End the FWP Commission

 

[Ben Lamb]

But is that the long term answer? Or does that just put us back in the same position we're in now in 3 or 4 terms, when a presumably democratic administration hands the reins back over to the a republican one? We'd come full circle at that point.

I'd support finding long term solutions now to avoid doing this every time there's a change of color at the Governors office.

It will take politics to get to the long term, sustainable outcome. That was my point.

 

[timmy]

Common sense would go a long ways but it’s all pipe dreams. Wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to fix it but this is where we are. I say we burn it down and keep our traditions of crappy hunting.

 

[406dn]

1. Double the price of Resident tags. Use that extra money as a depredation/damage fund for private land owners.
2. Establish trusted and transparent population counts
3. Redo the objectives....objectively
4. End the FWP Commission

Yes and no.

Concerning

#1. Yes on raising resident tags, doubling is fine by me. HELL no on using that money to fund damage compensation to private land owners, UNLESS they provide reasonable access during the hunting season.

#2 and 3 I'm with you there.

#4 That is counter productive. It is similar to term limits, it sounds great. Except when what you end up with are new dip$hits who know nothing deciding the affairs of the state. When you actually get a good one, they are term limited about the time where they really know their way around. If you end the commission, it will only hand the legislature more sway. Maybe some like their recent efforts, I don't.

 

[tjones]

1. Double the price of Resident tags. Use that extra money as a depredation/damage fund for private land owners.
2. Establish trusted and transparent population counts
3. Redo the objectives....objectively
4. End the FWP Commission

All great ideas but 95% of the hunters will never allow #1

FWP Will never do #2 or #3

and GiGi will never allow #4

The gas pedal is pegged to the floor board until we hit rock bottom.
Then we all take up bowling.

 

[shoots-straight]

The Commission is not designed to be a political entity. It is supposed to be made up of citizens from a range of backgrounds that reflect a cross section of stakeholders in Montana, to ensure representation by myriad public interests in decision making. They are widely used and have a long history of pretty successful input into wildlife management. The recent political shenanigans are the brain child of our new Gov.

Remove the Commission, and then you really do have no other avenue for citizen input in management decisions except via politicians. That only exacerbates the politicization IMO.

So THAT's what they meant when they talked about "Montana values"

That's not entirely true.

If we were able to get a Citizens initiative passed that changed the State Constitution and made the commissioners elected officials from each hunting district they ran in, and then they would pick the Director, you would have representation, and accountability to those that managed the Fish and Game. Long shot, yes!! Completely out of the realm of possibility, no.

 

[mtnkid85]

That's not entirely true.

If we were able to get a Citizens initiative passed that changed the State Constitution and made the commissioners elected officials from each hunting district they ran in, and then they would pick the Director, you would have representation, and accountability to those that managed the Fish and Game. Long shot, yes!! Completely out of the realm of possibility, no.

As much as I like the concept of what your saying, electing commissioners, I don't think it would change anything. The majority of voters simply go down the ticket and look at the little letter next to the name.
Thats why we are in the current situation we are in. You would just be adding more names for people to not care about on their ballots.

 

[brocksw]

That's not entirely true.

If we were able to get a Citizens initiative passed that changed the State Constitution and made the commissioners elected officials from each hunting district they ran in, and then they would pick the Director, you would have representation, and accountability to those that managed the Fish and Game. Long shot, yes!! Completely out of the realm of possibility, no.

You gotta a couple milli for a citizens initiative? I'm inclined to think that legislative action would be the ideal choice here as spending a couple mill in a CI might provide more bang for the buck in other areas of conservation.

#1. Yes on raising resident tags, doubling is fine by me. HELL no on using that money to fund damage compensation to private land owners, UNLESS they provide reasonable access during the hunting season.

Id agree, I don't exactly like it either. But here's the way I see it. Sportsman either get on board with paying landowners for damage or be ok with giving them 10 bull tags they can sell. Because in the end, money will drive that conversation. Hanging access over there head will lead to a stalemate. I'd rather the FWP develop a program for those payments and work with landowners in preventing that damage for frugal use of those funds, than giving them free bull tags which will guarantee that private land gets closed up for their big money tag holders. Maybe this comes in the form of fencing for hay protection or whatever.

We reward them for access, we reward them for good habitat. We should pay them for damages to avoid the outright sale of wildlife. I don't see any other way to do that. It's not perfect, but it's a compromise.


As far as #2 and #4 everyone person needs to get behind that push to force the FWPs hand. That's the only option in my eyes.

Ending the FWP commission will be a much larger lift that will only be done by CI or legislative measures

 

[Schaaf]

As much as I like the concept of what your saying, electing commissioners, I don't think it would change anything. The majority of voters simply go down the ticket and look at the little letter next to the name.
Thats why we are in the current situation we are in. You would just be adding more names for people to not care about on their ballots.

Make it non partisan. The Public Service Commission worked at first because people cared and it was non partisan. People forgot the institutional knowledge of why the PSC was needed and now no one cares and it’s where termed out legislators like Jennifer Fielder and Pinocchio, I mean Pinocci go to retire.

There’s no lack of caring about wildlife. I think it would work.

 

[tjones]

The influx of new resident hunters and these new liberal seasons will make things interesting.

Almost every hunter I have ran into this season and a bit before have been here 5 years or less.
One dude told me he had been here six years and was pissed about all the new hunters in “his spot”

Nice enough guy but had a real tough time giving him much sympathy.

 

[BRI]

Just read the online article from the Chronicle. Leadership's idea of transparency is telling us they're going to screw public land hunting into the dirt and there's not much you can do about it, but hey thanks for your comments.

I hope they do read some of these comments. Hard to imagine they'd want to be captain's of the ship when it sinks.

 

[Sytes]

I've had opportunity to speak with a few "new" neighbors as I keep seeing new 3/4 crush driveways laid in approx every 5-10 acre distances along my road. Whitefish has gone to crap!

With that, during various neighbor meetings and introductions to learn who they are - due to another out of state group of medical professionals who thought it a great investment to place a 30+ "Glamping" vacation spread within our residential area... These new members to our dirt road society of neighbors shared how exciting our hunting season is! Looking forward to bagging their first Bull, Buck, and Bear! Hey, and B tags? and...

We have a whole new collective group of people entering the hunting world from cityscapes that will sing praise more-so than criticism of our draining future.

Debbie downer - my bad. back to the awesome work by some fantastic organizations. I like SS CI for elections and would hope it followed Schaaf's basis of non partisan though really, does that exist now-a-days?

 

[BZNHNTR]

The elected FWP board scares me a bit, how many people (including hunters) would take the time to really know who they are voting for… Without party lines (which there shouldn’t be for the positions) I suspect it would come down to name recognition or dislike of the other name that is more recognized. Then we throw in out of state wolfie groups funding campaigns for/against FWP commissioners and the growing population of bozangeles cat ladies…

 

[shoots-straight]

The elected FWP board scares me a bit, how many people (including hunters) would take the time to really know who they are voting for… Without party lines (which there shouldn’t be for the positions) I suspect it would come down to name recognition or dislike of the other name that is more recognized. Then we throw in out of state wolfie groups funding campaigns for/against FWP commissioners and the growing population of bozangeles cat ladies…

Sounds like you aren't sure of our democratic process? Does it work? Voters that just vote R or D are a problem. I'm hopeful that we can get our chit together and start voting for the candidates that will represent us. Might be a dream though.