Fwp December commission meeting

[Eric Albus]

I get your argument. I will say that the primary benefit from non-partisan elections is that you can’t just vote straight ballot R or D and be done. You have to do some research. This research is beneficial to becoming an educated and informed voter, but it takes time. So I would guess most people don’t do it.

I think the debate is pointless because changing the constitution would be harder than changing commission membership, but it’s the off season.
Let’s list off primary concerns and see if they already exist…
Commission not listening to bios- check
Commission not listening to public- semi check (they still appear to care a little, although the opportunists still are the majority)
Money influencing Commissioner selection- check (just not corporate money…yet?)
Commission members being unqualified- check

I guess it could get worse

If we elected commissioners all you’d be getting is the best politicians. The public by and large would have zero clue for whom they were voting.

People are amazingly ignorant and some downright stupid.

 

[SAJ-99]

If we elected commissioners all you’d be getting is the best politicians. The public by and large would have zero clue for whom they were voting.

People are amazingly ignorant and some downright stupid.

The “let them eat cake” philosophy doesn’t work forever. Every political system leads to corruption eventually. How a person views it depends on how the power and money flow personally. Clearly the present system is your type of corruption.

 

[rogerthat]

You guys are totally losing me on the “appointment by an ELECTED official is less corrupt” than an election itself. Interesting logic. I wonder if we should just have the POTUS appoint the next POTUS once his term is up? Thoughts?

 

[Straight Arrow]

You guys are totally losing me on the “appointment by an ELECTED official is less corrupt” than an election itself. Interesting logic. I wonder if we should just have the POTUS appoint the next POTUS once his term is up? Thoughts?

Shush! We are not as far from that as you'd think!

 

[mtnkid85]

If we elected commissioners all you’d be getting is the best politicians. The public by and large would have zero clue for whom they were voting.

People are amazingly ignorant and some downright stupid.

Well stated Eric,

What I fear is, like Eric stated, the majority of MT residents and even MT hunters don't pay attention to the commission, game management in general etc. But they do know they aint gonna vote for NO flimflamming (insert whatever party letter here)!
Its abundantly clear hunt talkers are generally outliers within the broader hunter community, and sure some us might take the time to dig in to a commissioner election, but the broader public will continue to just vote for the loudest, most funded, best run political theater.

The commission had previously and purposefully been setup to cushion itself against the violent swing of administrative change by have staggered appointments.
Now with the 2021 expansion to the current 7 member commission along with the legislature not renewing Mckeans 2020 appointment and Byroth, anticipating a similar fate, choosing to step away. We now find ourselves in the current situation where the entire commission has been appointed by a single administration who has made it abundantly clear that it wants to operate by the wishes of the Governor.

 

[Big Fin]

Here are Montana's elected "non-partisan" Public Service Commissioners. Look at who the President and Vice-President are. Two of the most partisan people in Montana. But, they were elected, so supposedly no politics were involved.

Link here - https://psc.mt.gov/About-Us/Commissioners/



I get the frustration, but to think supposed "non-partisan" elections are truly non-partisan is akin to thinking that there is no money influencing politicians; nice in theory but far from reality. I will take our current appointed FWP Commission over that "non-partisan" elected PSC Commission, all day, every day, and three times on Sunday.

Anyone who thinks UPOM and their well-funded donors couldn't leverage small scale FWP elections to get more power on an elected FWP Commission is living in a dream world. Even if it is not their candidate, that "behind the scenes" money helps get people elected. That money comes with strings and influence. The smaller the election, the easier it is for groups to hijack the outcome.

The current appointment process is far from perfect. But, it also requires a confirmation process in the Montana Senate. There are staggered terms that overlap election cycles, the value of which is somewhat negated when a Governor wins two terms. These are better protections than an election of FWP Commissioners that will mostly be former legislators and lobbyists who view any elected office as a target for their partisan machines.

Elections do matter. Relationships matter. Involvement in the remainder of the process matters. Not saying hunters would/will get what we want, but to paraphrase Poz, "Even when the odds are stacked against you, don't give up. Make your opponent take it from you by fighting for your interest." We can make them own the decisions we disagree with.

A lot of what I hear from hunters is what I heard from landowners in the prior 16 years of Democratic Governors. They felt the FWP Commission appointment process was purely a political spoil handed to the Governor's friends. They felt the Commissioners didn't listen to their concerns. We can argue whether that was/wasn't true and they would argue that with the current administration it is/isn't true.

We have some Commission terms that will roll off the Commission in 2025. That is a time to show up. Between now and then, we also need to spend time building relationships with Commissioners, whether we/they agree on all issues. Others who might have a different interest than hunters are doing that. We need to spend more time doing that.

I wish it was easy and could always result in what is best for wildlife. It is a process of representative government, which history shows best "represents" the interest of those who show up.

 

[406dn]

To be able to focus on just the wildlife aspect. Most residents don’t care about it. It takes the wildlife out of part of the vote. If people think gianforte is doing well in most spots and nothing is overly upsetting in wildlife changes it’s not a issue on why they vote for him.

This kinda makes the point against electing Commissioners, doesn't it?

"Most residents don't care about it"

 

[Eric Albus]

The “let them eat cake” philosophy doesn’t work forever. Every political system leads to corruption eventually. How a person views it depends on how the power and money flow personally. Clearly the present system is your type of corruption.

This commission has gotten more done than the ones in previous memory.

Clearly my “type of corruption “

 

[SAJ-99]

This commission has gotten more done than the ones in previous memory.

Clearly my “type of corruption “

Yep, and we have pages of posts complaining about the results. Always easier to be happy when you get what you want and don't have to compromise.

 

[DFS]

Yep, and we have pages of posts complaining about the results. Always easier to be happy when you get what you want and don't have to compromise.

Since you seem so knowledgeable on every subject on HT please provide some examples of changes from previous commissions that benefited wildlife or hunters. Maybe some commissions when we had a democratic governor? I can think of a few but mainly we keep the boot right to the throat of our wildlife.

 

[SAJ-99]

Since you seem so knowledgeable on every subject on HT please provide some examples of changes from previous commissions that benefited wildlife or hunters. Maybe some commissions when we had a democratic governor? I can think of a few but mainly we keep the boot right to the throat of our wildlife.

I am very knowledgeable about a lot of things, none are HT related. I am not even going to look for your request, because I don't really disagree enough to do it. Honestly, I thought the results from this meeting could have been worse. I don't think that is the issue truly being discussed here at all. The issue is how to take the boot off in a way that keeps everyone at least semi-happy.

 

[DFS]

I am very knowledgeable about a lot of things, none are HT related. I am not even going to look for your request, because I don't really disagree enough to do it. Honestly, I thought the results from this meeting could have been worse. I don't think that is the issue truly being discussed here at all. The issue is how to take the boot off in a way that keeps everyone at least semi-happy.

It’s easy to blame the commission because they hold the hammer but the majority of the blame should fall on the department and their inability to see changes or adapt. There is no way to even hold them accountable. That’s frustrating.

 

[Eric Albus]

I am very knowledgeable about a lot of things, none are HT related. I am not even going to look for your request, because I don't really disagree enough to do it. Honestly, I thought the results from this meeting could have been worse. I don't think that is the issue truly being discussed here at all. The issue is how to take the boot off in a way that keeps everyone at least semi-happy.

I’m not to worried about everyone being “happy”….my concern is taking the boot off the throats of OUR wildlife.

There will certainly be those not happy with change. The change(whatever this looks like) most like won’t be perfect, but something has to be attempted, cause doing the same old ain’t a workin’.

 

[MTTW]

They have been trying to not piss people off all of my life. Meanwhile it has gone from seeing a hundred deer a day to seeing a deer once in a few days. Elk have gone from 90 percent on public to probably around 5 percent on public.

It is time to piss people off.

 

[cgasner1]

This kinda makes the point against electing Commissioners, doesn't it?

"Most residents don't care about it"

It would be nice to have a way to hold them accountable for not putting our wildlife first. For not listening to the public or bios. Idk how you do that but it just seems like it’s too big of a package with it all tied back to the governor. Especially when it turns into you get what you voted for. Well ya I did but I didn’t just vote a governor into office so I can kill does in region 7.

 

[rogerthat]

It would be nice to have a way to hold them accountable for not putting our wildlife first. For not listening to the public or bios. Idk how you do that but it just seems like it’s too big of a package with it all tied back to the governor. Especially when it turns into you get what you voted for. Well ya I did but I didn’t just vote a governor into office so I can kill does in region 7.

Yeah literally no one voted for or against Jersey Greg based off his positions on fish and game management except for maybe me. I get a deep chuckle every time this is used as an argument. I mean how smart is it to be a single issue voter? Ridiculous logic but that’s common these days.

 

[cgasner1]

Yeah literally no one voted for or against Jersey Greg based off his positions on fish and game management except for maybe me. I get a deep chuckle every time this is used as an argument. I mean how smart is it to be a single issue voter? Ridiculous logic but that’s common these days.

These guys bring up some very valid points. I have no idea what the right answer would be for fear of things that have been mentioned that could make it even worse. Just doesn’t seem fair to our wildlife

 

[shoots-straight]

Either the Democratic system we have in place works or it doesn't? If not then we have far larger problems coming at us.

If I hear things right, we can't go to elected representative elections for commissioners because our system of democracy is flawed and doesn't work?

The PSC is a different entity and IMO it's apples to oranges in a comparison to Fish & Game agency.
A private company doesn't own the Wildlife or set rates for us to utilize our state resources.

Right?

 

[Hunting Wife]

If I hear things right, we can't go to elected representative elections for commissioners because our system of democracy is flawed and doesn't work?

No, we shouldn’t go to elected because it’s not going to solve the problem it’s being touted to solve.

 

[DFS]

No, we shouldn’t go to elected because it’s not going to solve the problem it’s being touted to solve.

So we are screwed? We have a department that says there are no problems “best management in the west” and a commission that is listening to the department or running the governors agenda. There has to be a better way. A reasonable group of outfitters landowners and sportsman could come up with more meaningful solutions in an hour than mtfwp and the commission has in 50 years.