Montana - Time to Shake it Up?

[perma]

I have always thought that each Commissioner should have an unpaid region board comprised of hunters, landowners, outfitters, citizens, all stakeholders who would guide their respective regional Commissiorner's decisions and inputs. This process would also involve close collaboration with the FWP region staff and professionals. To me, that would lend the distinct and separate considerations for the complexity and diversity across Montana.

I think this is the answer. Getting candid feedback from (what id like to call) the real people who have the wildlife in mind first and stakeholders second is the way to go. Not the general public who, per FWP, say deer hunting is great.

 

[TOGIE]

I went to a season structure meeting at CPW last summer. I asked if it would be possible to take a deer DAU and completely manage it different than the rest of the western slope. Manage for age class instead of ratios, change season dates etc. They looked at me like I had 3 heads and said it wouldn’t be possible. I’m not sure if it is due to centralization of power here or not, but it certainly seemed like they were pretty closed minded.

it's extra ironic because cpw already does do this on some level.

plains are managed differently from the mountains, units with late doe tags to reduce population, units with short late cow seasons, unit with long late cow seasons, units with december bull tags because the bulls aren't legally reachable until the snow flies, units with early rifle bull tags, county properties with specific hunt codes to manage habitat degradation and local overpopulation, etc, etc...

there's all manner of local level management approaches they're already engaged in and the fact they don't think they could do all that on a DAU/unit level across the state with the "regular" seasons laughable.

maybe the issue is that would just make life too complicated for all the residents that hunt with the same people, in the same meadow, at the same time each year with the same otc bull tag. so kinda like montana, just gimme me my same mediocre crap every year and i'm happy.

 

[cgasner1]

I believe the real problem is the majority of Montana resident hunters, who are fine with how things are. They want a cheap license, long seasons, and as long as there is a chance for a forked MD buck or raghorn elk to throw in the back of the truck all is good. I’d love to see significant change, but the reality is unless there is a fundamental shift in the mindset of the average MT resident hunter I don’t think we can expect anything to change.

Top of page 5 pretty much sums it all up. https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...lk/resident-elk-hunter-survey-report-2023.pdf

Be honest with you I don’t really believe chit fwp puts outs

 

[mtmuley]

I also question the FWP biologists in certain regions. I know if an LE area for mule deer that was proposed by a biologist to go general a couple years ago. It's still LE, but it has been proposed to cut permit numbers for next year. Makes me shake my head. mtmuley

 

[Irrelevant]

Whenever I hear someone suggest we need more citizen input on wildlife issues I question how much engagement they've actually had with the general public.

People are idiots.
Hunters are even bigger idiots.

Idk what the answer is. Maybe just make @antlerradar, @Randy11, and @Nameless Range the 3 kings of MT deer management...

@Big Fin @Gerald Martin @Greenhorn for elk.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I believe the real problem is the majority of Montana resident hunters, who are fine with how things are. They want a cheap license, long seasons, and as long as there is a chance for a forked MD buck or raghorn elk to throw in the back of the truck all is good. I’d love to see significant change, but the reality is unless there is a fundamental shift in the mindset of the average MT resident hunter I don’t think we can expect anything to change.

Top of page 5 pretty much sums it all up. https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...lk/resident-elk-hunter-survey-report-2023.pdf

The course of human events can be changed by a small group of dedicated people.

Intransigence favors the state. Forward momentum takes more energy but once your rolling, you keep that momentum.

 

[SAJ-99]

...hopefully giving more reasons for Commissioners stick to the many important issues in their own Region (yeah, that is pointed at Commissioner Tabor).

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.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Hence my idea of trying to partner with MOGA rather than butting heads. It doesn't get done without their support.

I agree. Albus and other MOGA members do support the wildlife resource, as well as the important legacy of hunting. There are likely many other principles of mutual agreement between hunters and MOGA. It would be a very positive exercise to communicate and determine those potentially partnering principles.

'Don't think FWP Commission will ever be an elected body, so if hunters and MOGA partnered in agreement regarding candidates for commission appointment, that would carry a lot of weight in influencing the Governor.

 

[SAJ-99]

I agree. Albus and other MOGA members do support the wildlife resource, as well as the important legacy of hunting. There are likely many other principles of mutual agreement between hunters and MOGA. It would be a very positive exercise to communicate and determine those potentially partnering principles.

'Don't think FWP Commission will ever be an elected body, so if hunters and MOGA partnered in agreement regarding candidates for commission appointment, that would carry a lot of weight in influencing the Governor.

I'm not sure it can be about changing the committee membership. That is only going to be done with a change in Governor. MOGA has very little resistance with getting things through this committee currently. I think it is about finding areas of agreement. Some outfitters see the problems and are willing to address them. There are others that just want more tags to build business. That is a tough balance, but just walking into a conversation knowing that there are places of agreement is a start, recognizing that you won't agree on everything.

I think Cebull had more amendments than he had sent emails. There are clearly conversations going on that the average citizen isn't in the room (or on the phone) for. Average Joe needs to find a way in the room.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I'm not sure it can be about changing the committee membership. That is only going to be done with a change in Governor. MOGA has very little resistance with getting things through this committee currently. I think it is about finding areas of agreement. Some outfitters see the problems and are willing to address them. There are others that just want more tags to build business. That is a tough balance, but just walking into a conversation knowing that there are places of agreement is a start, recognizing that you won't agree on everything.

I think Cebull had more amendments than he had sent emails. There are clearly conversations going on that the average citizen isn't in the room (or on the phone) for. Average Joe needs to find a way in the room.

I was referring to future partnership, future Commission selection ... not anything to do with this current Commission or current Governor.

 

[WanderWoman]

That is a tough balance, but just walking into a conversation knowing that there are places of agreement is a start, recognizing that you won't agree on everything.

Whenever I go into a conversation with someone I know might be a little contentious I think of the 80:20 rule. In most cases, when you’re talking with someone, you can find that there’s probably 80% of things you can agree on or have in common with that other person, and maybe 20% that you don’t. I’m speaking in very basic terms, i.e., “the sky is blue,” “wildlife are awesome,” or, “there are issues with wildlife management in Montana.” You can do it when talking hunting and you can do it with your crazy uncle at the holiday dinner table. You get and build a relationship on that 80% and then it’s a little easier to take on the 20% at some point in the future.

 

[Big Shooter]

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.

THIS! He just nailed it…..both ways! We have all beat our screens up for years going at each other, but I think that BOTH sides are coming together for the correct reason and that is the resource. I’m in!!

 

[Irishman]

Respectfully, why do you think an elected official would be better than an appointed? Are Montana hunters, as a whole, of the opinion that they need to suck up less opportunity to improve the quality of their hunting? My impression was that many/most hunters are going to need to be dragged across the line here, to do what needs to be done. It seems to me like one of the issues that makes this so difficult is that many/most Montana hunters just don't want to accept what has happened to the population of the state and how that impacts hunting.
(That said, I haven't lived in Montana for a long time and I'd be interested in hearing your answer).

I would guess that the majority of Montana hunters are not willing to give up opportunity. I would guess that if FWP catered to the majority of their customers wants, then hunting would deteriorate further. So wanting the public to be involved in decision making, might not be that great of an idea. Unless of course the public that gets involved in decision making are all from this forum.

 

[Mallardsx2]

Full disclosure.

I hunted unit 700 and unit 410 for the general deer a few years back. That was the weirdest trip I have ever been on. I saw Hundreds of does. I saw about a dozen bucks the entire time I was there (9 full days), but I was seeing a minimum of 100 does per day. One day I saw close to 300 does and not a single buck. This was "peak Rut” BTW. The Buck to doe ratio IMHO was about 3:98 and in most areas, it was MUCH lower than that.

I won't likely be going back to Montana until they fix the issue of the M:F imbalance because IMHO (at least for those two areas) it is EXTREMELY out of balance. Thats too much money to pay to hunt a place that is that void of bucks.

Most interesting to me was that it was mostly residents driving around with fork horns in the back of their trucks. So, I would say that residents are for the most part happy just shooting them a meat buck and calling it a day and going home. I glassed up a small fork horn that was about 300 yards off the road one morning on my way in and had a couple residents pull up and ask what I was looking at. I told them a small fork horn and they asked if I was going to shoot it and I said I wasn't. They drove off and when my dad came driving by, they were in that same spot leaning across the truck hood on sandbags. lol When my friend came driving by later that morning, they were tossing that fork horn into the bed of the truck. Legal is legal, I guess and if you’re looking for meat, then a fork horn eats. I don't know why they weren't just shooting a doe though as there were TONS of those to be had in much easier places.

Those two units would benefit a LOT by limiting the buck harvest at least for a few years IMHO.

I drove 36 hours to Montana and passed on everything until the last day. I shot a doe with ~15 minutes of my hunt left.

So, ya, I say go ahead and shake things up.

 

[cgasner1]

To me we can still give opportunities to hunt thru the rut. Could always cut season shorter for mule deer and introduce some sort of short range weapon hunt. Always cut 2 weeks out and make them a draw to help with bottle neck of mule deer tags in this state plenty of options for a little tweak to make a huge difference. There will always be a last day of season and people killing anything with a pulse on that day but at least the bucks won’t be as dumb on it

 

[Tmbrgost]

The course of human events can be changed by a small group of dedicated people.

Intransigence favors the state. Forward momentum takes more energy but once your rolling, you keep that momentum.

This! Right on!

We have to change the current path of our Montana Hunting from a revenue stream to a precious resource mind set. The ”Joe public” hunter considers our animals a resource. (does not include outfitters) Politicians see them as streams of revenue. This is like trying to mix oil & water, every time we do we stand back and scratch our heads trying to figure out why it isn’t working! This is the purest definition of insanity. While I don’t know the right path, I do know our current path is leading us to a cliff of possible dire consequences. Here are some very general and probably naive suggestions. Feel free to critique.

1. Each hunting region within Mt be given individual opportunity to manage the resource.
2. Restructure, remove, retire the current FWP to a more resident friendly, listening machine.
3. Create a citizen board for each district. (10 total members: 5 citizens & 2 biologist , 1 game warden, the Regional Director from FWP for the district & 1 administrative assistant) This board along with the New FWP work closely together to determine what is best for each district. Board members & FWP would be reimbursed( don’t know what this looks like yet) based upon hitting the objectives determined. (One 4 year citizen term only. Rotate biologists & wardens)
4. Increase the amount of Game Warden positions by 50% & pay incentives by 30-40%. A Warden must be one of the sitting New FWP members on each board.
5. Change the process and mindset of the ALL game surveys conducted on behalf of our resources to attain more accurate data. Using modern ways of collecting this data.
6. Revamp the NR licensing fees, quantity, time frames away from “pay more get more“ to a true lottery draw. Each species has to be drawn. None of this, “throw a deer tag in” bull#&$. (5 year minimum redraw wait period???)

I know this will get town up pretty bad but have at it.

For every negative reason you “conspire“ to share please consider bringing 2 solutions. If you forget, refer to the above quote from the great one, @Ben Lamb

 

[cgasner1]

This! Right on!

We have to change the current path of our Montana Hunting from a revenue stream to a precious resource mind set. The ”Joe public” hunter considers our animals a resource. (does not include outfitters) Politicians see them as streams of revenue. This is like trying to mix oil & water, every time we do we stand back and scratch our heads trying to figure out why it isn’t working! This is the purest definition of insanity. While I don’t know the right path, I do know our current path is leading us to a cliff of possible dire consequences. Here are some very general and probably naive suggestions. Feel free to critique.

1. Each hunting region within Mt be given individual opportunity to manage the resource.
2. Restructure, remove, retire the current FWP to a more resident friendly, listening machine.
3. Create a citizen board for each district. (10 total members: 5 citizens & 2 biologist , 1 game warden, the Regional Director from FWP for the district & 1 administrative assistant) This board along with the New FWP work closely together to determine what is best for each district. Board members & FWP would be reimbursed( don’t know what this looks like yet) based upon hitting the objectives determined. (One 4 year citizen term only. Rotate biologists & wardens)
4. Increase the amount of Game Warden positions by 50% & pay incentives by 30-40%. A Warden must be one of the sitting New FWP members on each board.
5. Change the process and mindset of the ALL game surveys conducted on behalf of our resources to attain more accurate data. Using modern ways of collecting this data.
6. Revamp the NR licensing fees, quantity, time frames away from “pay more get more“ to a true lottery draw. Each species has to be drawn. None of this, “throw a deer tag in” bull#&$. (5 year minimum redraw wait period???)

I know this will get town up pretty bad but have at it.

For every negative reason you “conspire“ to share please consider bringing 2 solutions. If you forget, refer to the above quote from the great one, @Ben Lamb

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

 

[Flynarrow]

Good conversation Randy and others. There are indeed some principles that will shape the future of Montana's big game management:

1) Follow the money. FWP budget is largely dependent on tag sales and even more on non-resident tag sales. Fixed costs are high so income flexibility is low. "Opportunity" equals revenue. Any change has to either cut costs (reduce personnel) or maintain revenue (possibly significant resident tag cost increases?)

2) Centralized power in government is very difficult to decentralize because the power doesn't willingly give up their control. It will take some outside force to make that change. Currently there are a lot of remaining FWP employees trying to survive by keeping their heads below ground. Don't look for a solution coming from within the Dept.

3) Late seasons are institutionalized traditions among both average hunters, trophy seeking hunters and outfitters (maximizing numbers of booked clients). Change will likely have to have parts of each region continuing to offer late season opportunities to be palatable.

4) Commissioners are selected by the Governor. For the foreseeable future that means outfitters and large landowners are in the driver's seat. Potential solutions/ideas will have to pass thru those screens.

 

[brockel]

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.

 

[cgasner1]

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.

Non residents should have to draw by region. I wish residents would also but just getting the non residents there would be a huge step. Wyoming is set up that way I have to draw a tag by region while my buddy hunts a lot of that state in general. Our possibilities are endless. Someone just needs to move forward with something that hasn’t been happening here since the 50s