Fish and Wildlife Commission sued over open-meeting law, black bear quotas

[TheJason]

Fish and Wildlife Commission sued over open-meeting law, black bear quotas

Wildlife and conservation group members from across Montana sued the state Fish and Wildlife Commission for allegedly ignoring state open meeting laws when approving the elimination of some black bear hunting quotas.

montanafreepress.org

There are some head scratcher commish quotes in here.

 

[INMT]

Tabor might have retired from outfitting but his son still runs the company.

 

[bigsky2]

Fish and Wildlife Commission sued over open-meeting law, black bear quotas

Wildlife and conservation group members from across Montana sued the state Fish and Wildlife Commission for allegedly ignoring state open meeting laws when approving the elimination of some black bear hunting quotas.

montanafreepress.org

There are some head scratcher commish quotes in here.

It watched that meeting and it was pretty alarming, to say the least.

 

[Carnage2011]

It watched that meeting and it was pretty alarming, to say the least.

I watched it as well and felt like there was something shady to it. Considering that amendment was proposed during the meeting, it was odd to me that there was a decent amount of public comment in support of it. It felt like they knew it was coming…

 

[Badlandcat]

Tabor did the same thing to the mtn lions a couple of years ago. He needs to go.

 

[BuzzH]

I watched it as well and felt like there was something shady to it. Considering that amendment was proposed during the meeting, it was odd to me that there was a decent amount of public comment in support of it. It felt like they knew it was coming…

Absolutely. There is so much inside nonsense that goes on with the various commissions and really the FWP, Governors office, etc. its sickening. It's no different in WY, CO, NM, OR, etc.

All of them drone on about transparency and then do everything they can not to be transparent. They also drone on about public involvement, we want to hear from our constituents...its all a lie. They don't like to hear from the public.

They would much rather just cater to the rich, developers, real estate agents, extractive industry, ranchers, outfitters and be done with it.

I hope they get their ass handed to them with the lawsuit.

 

[Brad]

Absolutely. There is so much inside nonsense that goes on with the various commissions and really the FWP, Governors office, etc. its sickening. It's no different in WY, CO, NM, OR, etc.

All of them drone on about transparency and then do everything they can not to be transparent. They also drone on about public involvement, we want to hear from our constituents...its all a lie. They don't like to hear from the public.

They would much rather just cater to the rich, developers, real estate agents, extractive industry, ranchers, outfitters and be done with it.

I hope they get their ass handed to them with the lawsuit.

Well f-ing said.

 

[Irrelevant]

I was certain this was going to be about WA

 

[SAJ-99]

This isn’t a new strategy. They have done this before. And I’m sure Buzz is right in that it happens in a lot of states. I have seen instances of emails where MT has asked FWP legal council if they can get away with no public comment on stuff. The main problem is there is no group willing to sue them until the action taken in the meeting fits their narrative. I guess some groups thought this one did.

FWP admits commission's violation of constitutional rights

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks attorneys have acknowledged that FWP commissioners violated the public’s constitutional right-to-know.

newstalkkgvo.com

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Absolutely. There is so much inside nonsense that goes on with the various commissions and really the FWP, Governors office, etc. its sickening. It's no different in WY, CO, NM, OR, etc.

All of them drone on about transparency and then do everything they can not to be transparent. They also drone on about public involvement, we want to hear from our constituents...its all a lie. They don't like to hear from the public.

They would much rather just cater to the rich, developers, real estate agents, extractive industry, ranchers, outfitters and be done with it.

I hope they get their ass handed to them with the lawsuit.

Dead on. Only slight difference in CO is they cater to Chairman Polis and the anti-hunting, animal rights, pro-wolf professional activists and advocates. Same issues with transparency, open meetings laws, and accountability. Wrong either way.

 

[BuzzH]

It's unfortunate, but the only way to address these issues is to sue the living crap out of the agencies and commission. Its why I'm uncomfortable with any talk of making it more difficult for lawsuits to be filed and any "reform" to the EAJA.

Some of the only teeth we have is to litigate this kind of crap, take that away, we're really McScrewed.

 

[Nameless Range]

I am the chair of a county commission. Appointed by our county commissioners eight years ago now. Numerous times over the last decade, the Montana fish and game commission has embarrassed itself with little to no consequences regarding Montanan’s Right to Know, open meeting laws, and shady shit.


When I want to see competency in government, it often seems to shine most in the local, and degrade the further it gets from that.

The things they can and cannot do are all in writing, and when in doubt they should lean toward being conservative with their power.


I know they have a difficult role, but can’t help but feel like what I’m watching is often outright f*ckery.

 

[SAJ-99]

I am the chair of a county commission. Appointed by our county commissioners eight years ago now. Numerous times over the last decade, the Montana fish and game commission has embarrassed itself with little to no consequences regarding Montanan’s Right to Know, open meeting laws, and shady shit.
On the measly commission I’m on serving 10,000 or so people, we get called out on far less all the time.

When I want to see competency in government, it often seems to shine most in the local, and degrade the further it gets from that.

The things they can and cannot do are all in writing, and when in doubt they should lean toward being conservative with their power.


I know they have a difficult role, but can’t help but feel like what I’m watching is often outright f*ckery.

View attachment 357423

It seems the theme lately is politicians and their ilk can break rules/laws without consequences. Even winning lawsuits don’t have repercussions. It just continues as usual. I suspect we will see a lot more of the same in coming years.

 

[lastlight]

While I don’t agree with the way they went about this nor a lot of what FWP does, I’m all for killing more bears or any predators in this region.

Unless I'm missing something? Looking for genuine responses thanks.

 

[TheJason]

While I don’t agree with the way they went about this nor a lot of what FWP does, I’m all for killing more bears or any predators in this region.

Unless I'm missing something? Looking for genuine responses thanks.

You’re missing the point. It isn’t about the end result, it’s about having the integrity to follow ethics and process.

 

[lastlight]

You’re missing the point. It isn’t about the end result, it’s about having the integrity to follow ethics and process.

Can we side step the lack of process here and just a little bit celebrate a win for fawns and calves? Just trying to see silver lining in this specific case.

Id take stopping further development and habitat protections all day, but we all know nothing is stopping Californians from watching TV shows motivating them to move up here and build their stupid ranchettes on critical habitat. So we got to help deer/elk in any way possible IMO.

If my opinion takes this thread the wrong direction my apologies.

 

[TheJason]

Can we side step the lack of process here and just a little bit celebrate a win for fawns and calves? Just trying to see silver lining in this specific case.

Id take stopping further development and habitat protections all day, but we all know nothing is stopping Californians from watching TV shows motivating them to move up here and build their stupid ranchettes on critical habitat. So we got to help deer/elk in any way possible IMO.

If my opinion takes this thread the wrong direction my apologies.

No. Not following the process opens them up to lawsuits. Reference article. Lawsuits are costly. They slow things down. They erode public trust. They reduce credibility. They reduce efficiency.

Not following the rules is fine for a lot of folks, until it’s their ox getting gored. Would you be okay with circumventing the rules if you didn’t agree with the decision?

 

[lastlight]

No. Not following the process opens them up to lawsuits. Reference article. Lawsuits are costly. They slow things down. They erode public trust. They reduce credibility. They reduce efficiency.

Not following the rules is fine for a lot of folks, until it’s their ox getting gored. Would you be okay with circumventing the rules if you didn’t agree with the decision?

No I wouldn’t be, I’m just in favor of aggressive predator management in areas that have issues with severe declines in elk like NW Montana. If you asked hunters in these areas I’d bet my house the vast majority would agree.

I don’t know the ins and outs of this particular meeting they held and any other motives they had, I’ll admit. But if it helps put more elk and deer on the landscape I’d have to applaud but also encourage them to do it the legal way in the future. The lawsuit sucks, they should have seen that coming a mile away.

 

[TheJason]

No I wouldn’t be, I’m just in favor of aggressive predator management in areas that have issues with severe declines in elk like NW Montana. If you asked hunters in these areas I’d bet my house the vast majority would agree.

Rules are optional if you agree with the results then?

 

[bigsky2]

No I wouldn’t be, I’m just in favor of aggressive predator management in areas that have issues with severe declines in elk like NW Montana. If you asked hunters in these areas I’d bet my house the vast majority would agree.

I don’t know the ins and outs of this particular meeting they held and any other motives they had, I’ll admit. But if it helps put more elk and deer on the landscape I’d have to applaud but also encourage them to do it the legal way in the future. The lawsuit sucks, they should have seen that coming a mile away.

It doesn’t give you confidence that they care what you think when they introduce amendments during the meeting that weren’t even on the agenda and then vote on them that day with no input from the public. That’s not how the process is supposed to work and I’m glad they got sued.