So the same voters who put the people in office you dislike are going to choose the politically aligned commissioners who get support from either party for wildlife management?
Respectfully buddy, this just makes wildlife even more hyper-partisan.
New FWP Commissioners
- Thread starter canadiantuxedo
- Start date
So the same voters who put the people in office you dislike are going to choose the politically aligned commissioners who get support from either party for wildlife management?
Respectfully buddy, this just makes wildlife even more hyper-partisan.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I agree Ben.
But, how many times have I heard that the people who voted in the super majority say they don't agree with those they vote for on wildlife/habitat/hunting issues...they cast their votes on issues on they deem more important on things like border issues, taxes, abortion, gun rights, etc?
They tell me over and over again that those issues are just more important than wildlife, habitat, hunting, fishing etc. So, they vote against themselves in regard to that, including conceding the FWP commission to those they vote for.
Is it not conceivable that they COULD vote in a commission or commissioner that aligns closer to their beliefs on proper wildlife management since they could ignore those other issues?
Its pretty obvious that expecting a Governor, and those you vote for, to act responsibly in regard to political appointments to the commission simply isn't working these days. Its a rare bird that a single member of a commission even has a degree in a natural resources field, let alone wildlife biology.
Its to the point of being ridiculous and trying something else keeps looking better all the time.
I disagree with you Ben. When people vote for Governor there are a lot of other issues on the table. One thing is for sure what we are doing right now isn’t working and that is through both Republican and Democratic governors. We are going to take wildlife right to the brink.
As with District Judges, they are not aligned with the corrupt D or R following the name. IMO, when that fancy D or R is present for voting interests - it's trench warfare. With Dictrict Judges, they are not assigned. I would consider a commissioner under the same as District Judges, no political designation.
Place the individual as State wide appointment under the current political biased D or R and that is destined to rah, rah, the opposing crowd - as here.
It takes 100 votes to put this on the ballot and change the MT State Constitution. Sen Molnar has the bill draft.
Get to work.
The current majority is working over time to eliminate the non-partisan nature of the judiciary. You have poor winds for your sails here.
brocksw
Well-known member
I know Ben and some others disagree with me, but IMO Game commissions are a bad idea to begin with. But making them elected officials is an even worse idea. Hunters should be working to take politics out of wildlife management, not adding more back in. Making commission members elected officials would be opening the floodgates for campaign money and other dark money to come in an influence management and decision making. Imagine the amount of money UPOM could put behind a candidate to get him elected, or any one of the billionaire land owners that could buy himself a seat at the table. That's how elections are won. Who has the most money.
I would want absolutely ZERO part of that in wildlife management.
I would want absolutely ZERO part of that in wildlife management.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
So if the F&G Commission is done away with, then what takes its place or is it just a straight relationship between the Legislature and FWP or does FWP become part of the Governor's office? What is your solution to wildlife and fisheries management?
This is EXACTLY what has caused such a commotion currently... Individual Regional votes (x7) versus one Democrat or Republican, "Dark $" elected official. I'd place my vote for whom I find fitting my Region's interest versus settling with ONE R or D declaring the intent to fix the f-ups of the other.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Totally agree, elected commissions would likely be worse.
But what you explained in your post, is essentially already happening anyway...why some are willing/wanting to try electing the commission.
Better approach would be requiring education/experience in a natural resource field, etc. to even be considered for Commission appointments.
Why does every job on the planet require education and experience except for politicians and political appointments?
brocksw
Well-known member
Why does anything have to take it's place? Why can't the residents of MT work directly with the FWP and their staff?
If you don't like the politicians being elected or the campaign financing now, I would not advocate for creating a political body welcoming more of the same. IMO, that's exactly what will happen. Just add millions of dollars of campaign financing and political promises to your current commissioners. Does it make things better or worse?
I'm not sure what the solution is for MT's commission. I just hold a strong opinion that making them elected officials is not the answer.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
If Commission goes away it would result in the Director of FWP having greater authority. Ultimately someone needs to say how the funds are to be spent and set seasons. This may or may not be better than a Commission depending on your point of view.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I do think it is interesting how some people think an elected commission would be worse and others think it would be better. That said, as @Ben rightfully pointed out, a change in how the commission comes to be is so unlikely as to be not worth spending too much energy on.
I suppose we’ll see how these commission members are soon enough. I’ll admit I went creeping through the social media of theirs that I could find and didn’t see anything alarming.
There’s big fish to fry right now. Send your representatives a nice email and get to know them. Use your good standing in your community, if you have one, to develop a relationship with them. It sure seems like we are going to have quite a few “ all hands on deck“ moments coming up in the near future. It also seems, after the recent house rules debate, that the supermajority is not a monolith. I believe we can make a difference.
I suppose we’ll see how these commission members are soon enough. I’ll admit I went creeping through the social media of theirs that I could find and didn’t see anything alarming.
There’s big fish to fry right now. Send your representatives a nice email and get to know them. Use your good standing in your community, if you have one, to develop a relationship with them. It sure seems like we are going to have quite a few “ all hands on deck“ moments coming up in the near future. It also seems, after the recent house rules debate, that the supermajority is not a monolith. I believe we can make a difference.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I have to think that voters would chose the candidates that best fit there interests for wildlife when voting for commissioners.
Montanans have for the most part voted for democrats in the past for the office of superintendent of public instruction even when republicans won most of he other state wide offices, because for the most part they agree with the democrats when it comes to education. It is likely voters will do the same with wildlife.
Last edited:
brocksw
Well-known member
Maybe. But I don't know any state agencies that work with the director serving as a dictator. The FWP staff does most of the heavy lifting on a day to day basis. There's fiscal notes attached to everything, biological impacts, impacts to statistical collection methods, a whole host of impacts with each change to agency policy or laws. So, it's not as if the FWP director would just implement policy at his discretion. There is still statute to guide operation, still feedback from his staff, regional managers, and public meetings. Removing the commission does not automatically make the FWP a communist dictatorship.
Last edited:
sclancy27
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 492
I think, if estimating probabilities, the probability that an elected commission is worse than an appointed one is about 99% to 1%, if not greater. There is little chance an election would make it better, and given the current nature of our state it is an overwhelming chance that it would be worse.
Prob the best path forward is the current Commision structure and increasing the citizen working groups. I like to believe that most of the commissioners are reasonable people, and when presented with the unbiased evidence will use it to make their decisions.
We as hunters need to become much more organized in the way we approach the Commission. Look at the way MOGA approached the 313 proposed regulation changes. A bunch of different individuals submitted well written (albeit evidence lacking) letters supporting the same thing. If hunters approach the same way, but with evidence, I think we have success. Imagine if 100 different people wrote in with the same proposal to change the way antelope and mule deer doe harvest was regulated? I think we can make traction that way. At the very least we can point out obvious bias if they choose to ignore requests simply based on affiliation
Prob the best path forward is the current Commision structure and increasing the citizen working groups. I like to believe that most of the commissioners are reasonable people, and when presented with the unbiased evidence will use it to make their decisions.
We as hunters need to become much more organized in the way we approach the Commission. Look at the way MOGA approached the 313 proposed regulation changes. A bunch of different individuals submitted well written (albeit evidence lacking) letters supporting the same thing. If hunters approach the same way, but with evidence, I think we have success. Imagine if 100 different people wrote in with the same proposal to change the way antelope and mule deer doe harvest was regulated? I think we can make traction that way. At the very least we can point out obvious bias if they choose to ignore requests simply based on affiliation
That would certainly be hopeful
I can think of where I live where we had a overall pretty bad commissioner a couple years back. Totally in the bag of anyone that complained, outfitters and other private interests. Didn’t hunt or fish and had real issues with the agency and personnel. My guess is if it was put to a vote he would easily have been elected as those groups he liked were really vocal about how great he was
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Having a person to make final decisions is not the same as a dictatorship. Decisions need to be made by either a person or an entity. Every business or agency works this way. How those decisions are determined is what you are after. Currently the Commission looks at all those data points you reference. Then makes a decision on items under its purview based on those data points. Should the Commission go away who has the final say on those items?
brocksw
Well-known member
You're right and I acknowledge that may have been an extreme analogy to use. My point, that I failed to articulate, was that the director is not waking up and unilaterally implementing major agency policy and regulation.
It really depends on the change. Some changes are in statute, so in those cases it goes through a legislative process. Some are administrative, so it's an administrative rule setting process. Some are proclaimations signed by the governor.
But those are SOPs already set in place and already happening. Regardless of a commission. They include the public and allow the wildlife professionals to bring their best foot forward and deal with the beneficiaries of the trust that they manage.
I guess I just don't see how one can ask for science based management and then simultaneously appoint or elect a political body with direct authority over that same science based management.
I don't know about you, but generally I do not associate politicians or politics with making existing governmental processes better, or more efficient. Ymmv.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
You make valid points. Ultimately FWP answers to the Legislature and gets state funding through that body, just like other state agencies. Other state agencies and their subordinate departments report to subcommittees such as EQC, so the transparency and accountability certainly can be accomplished without the intermediate F&G Commission. State agency directors and staff typically interact directly with the Legislature.
Perhaps it might even evolve into more solving of problems and resolving issues at the FWP region level. brocksaw, you have just about convinced me.
But in today's political climate dissolving the F&G Commission would be a huge undertaking.
