Probably because most normal people have jobs.
In todays political climate electing commissioners seems like the most reasonable way to put wildlife first. At least you would know what you’re getting.
Fwp December commission meeting
- Thread starter 8andcounting
- Start date
Not to be contrarian, but the commission still had a few holdover appointees from the last administration then (plus Jana Waller) who seemed to give a bit more of a chit about public comment and building consensus.
That was also a massive, statewide set of changes being proposed in ‘21 that got folks mobilized. Lately they’ve been taking more of a death by 1000 paper cuts route. I hate to be so cynical, but I don’t think they’d propose such sweeping changes again after seeing the kind of mobilization they got in ‘21.
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,401
MOGA is in charge that much is crystal clear
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,401
How so ? Looks squashed
Unless I’m reading it wrong
Attachments
WanderWoman
Well-known member
They approved it without the block management part. 99.9% certain.
After Tabor accused BM landowners of not caring about being complicit in the extinction of mule deer and only being in Block for the $$. After which Chair Robinson gloriously called him out from the perspective of being in Block for 23 years and not it it for the $$.
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,401
Huh ? I’m talking the region 6 stuff . The b tags for region 6 is what I’m talking about sorry I didn’t clarify that
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,401
The b tag stuff for R7 was approved minus the block part
WanderWoman
Well-known member
Gotcha. I’m pretty sure that one failed but I might be wrong.
The motion of Commissioner Burrows only eliminated public land b tags. The way the motion was worded, all private land, including that in block mgt, if exempted. It's effectively the same amendment with minor word choices.
No mule deer doe hunting on public land in R6 & R7 was the ultimate decision. Just different word choices.
No mule deer doe hunting on public land in R6 & R7 was the ultimate decision. Just different word choices.
WanderWoman
Well-known member
Thanks for the clarification; @8andcounting, disregard my last message.
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,401
Good it’s a good first step
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,401
I have thoughts and hopes that with no more public b tags in eastern MT that the number of applicants in 2024 for NR tags will be down . With numbers being low and no more doe slaughter , but it’s probably wishful thinking
SAJ-99
Well-known member
You were too kind. The simple answer is the suggestion unworkable. Changing the constitution is literally the hardest path to whatever change is sought. And even if it somehow got done, you have to look at some of clowns in Helena and think the result of any election wouldn’t be much better.
Funny how when others look at WA wildlife commission and that shitshow, the blame goes straight to the top. But when the average Montana hunter gets screwed, repeatedly I might add, the solution is to change the process.
Elections are coming. If they don’t want to send a message then, maybe the new rallying cry should just be “Lawyer Up”.
I post this thread from earlier this year.
Patrick Byorth's Experience on the Montana FWP Commission
A bummer of an article to read, but a couple things we all know now being said from someone who was on the inside: "Byorth said Tabor only called him once regarding an issue before the commission, despite the fact he represented the resource and Montana hunters and anglers.“He had his agenda...
www.hunttalk.com
T
tjones
Guest
Montana voters won't change because anything other than status quo is coming for our guns.
Maybe that will become a new rallying cry. Maybe it needs to be tested as to whether or not the appointed Trustees of a Public Trust are doing what is required of them and doing it in the "Reasonable and Prudent" Standard that is required of Trustee.
I mean after all, Fiduciary Duties and Trustee Responsibilities are written in Montana Code. Just go to MCA Title 72 Chapter 38 Part 8.
If you are a Trustee of Trusts like I am, you have that section of MCA on your night stand. These Commissioners are Trustees of the Public Trust that holds Montana's wildlife for the citizens of Montana.
- Do they operate independently and without conflict?
- Do they recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest, with courts having stated that "conflict in appearance is conflict in fact?"
- Do they rely on experts for issues outside of their professional experience?
- Do they have special skills or have they received special training that qualifies them for their role as Trustee?
- Do they operate with Transparency?
- Do they act in the best interest of the Beneficiary (all citizens) at all times, also know as "Duty of Loyalty?"
- Do they manage the Trust Assets/Corpus prudently for current and future beneficiaries?
- Do they act in a way the protects the Beneficiaries from themselves (what we call protection from predators, creditors, and themselves)?
- Do they .........
I could go on and on as to areas where Trustees often forget to whom they are beholden to under the Fiduciary Standards of a Trustee. Like most states, Montana has codified those standards and requirements. The courts have settled many cases on such.
Are the duties of a Public Trustee any different? It would likely take a court case to determine that. So, maybe your suggestion to "Lawyer Up" has some merit to determine what the standards of a Public Trustee are. The courts have held that wildlife is held in Trust, so that is not the issue. That Public Trustees can be appointed, elected, or employed, is also settled.
Thus, the question becomes, to what level of Fiduciary Standard should appointed Trustees (Commissioners) be held? And if they are not operating according to the Fiduciary Standards, what recourse do affected Beneficiaries (citizens) have?
And if you "lawyer up" and prevail, do you plow an easier path for those who would use the same legal concepts to take away hunting seasons, to take away any management of the "Charismatic Megafauna," to make every decision on wildlife a litigated event such that management (hunting, trapping, fishing) would be in question?
Given the manner in which recent Commissions have operated, when overlayed with the MCA related to Fiduciary Duties and other Public Trust Law, there exists pretty fertile grounds for the Commission to be taken to court. I suspect the reasons it hasn't is mostly due to the cost associated with that. Litigation against any Government agency or their agents is very expensive. If I sat on this Commission and allowed a lot of the self-serving acts we've witnessed to pass with my vote, I would ask FWP legal staff or the AG what the E&O policy coverage is for Commissioners.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Montana voters won't change because anything other than status quo is coming for our guns.
This is one of the problems with a commission that is appointed - and I know a constitutional Amendment is arguably a much more difficult lift than finding a way to work with what exists.
When folks elect a governor, or a legislator, they are thinking about taxes, their kids education, regulations, how trans kids will be treated, climate change, etc... In a very apartisan way, who is going to get appointed the Fish and Game Commission is not chief in their priorities - and frankly that is rational. The politics of it - the scope of one's decision on who to vote for - is too big to consider the Commission in a serious way.
If, in my delusion, we elected commissioners, the only consideration would be how they will influence one's hunting and fishing. Montanans, when given the opportunity to vote directly on fish and wildlife issues, actually have a pretty damn good record.
I know it will never happen.
I spoke to the Region 3 biologist supervisor, as well as my biologist. I wrote my Commissioner directly, and cc'd all others. The agency staff due to no fault of their own, are inert. It seems like if the Commission decides, the Elk Plan can be inert too. The Commission, doesn't seem to care - and why would they? What happens when they make bad decisions and piss folks off? Essentially nothing. How does a citizen hold their Commission accountable? If the answer starts at the governor's office, I will defer to the second paragraph of this post to highlight how watered down that is.
Personally I'll continue to work within the system we've got, and hold hope for a better executive branch in the future, and basically see the most likely path forward as injecting as much friction into the bad ideas from the Commission and the Legislature as possible, so sometime down the road their reversal will not be such a large lift. I also know there's folks like the Elk Coalition and others doing good work, but it's definitely disheartening to bare witness to it all. Someone earlier highlighted that our yesterday our Commissioners exhibited the fact that they don't know how bonus points work. Imagine going to a Dr. for a knee surgery, only to find as your lights are going out, that old sawbones doesn't know the difference between an ACL and an MCL. This is the boat we are in.
As an aside, I have been researching things locally, and found this letter to the editor from a game commissioner that grew up in the Boulder Valley and served on the Commission in the 1950s. There's a spirit there - a belief in serving the Montanans of the present and future - that is missing from the modern day commission. One so entrenched in a pool wildlife that to them, is zoned commercial - the plebes being an obstacle to overcome, not serve.
Last edited:
4ohSick
Well-known member
Nameless Range
Well-known member
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Follow the lead.
missoulacurrent.com
FWP admits commission’s violation of public’s constitutional righ
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks attorneys have acknowledged that FWP commissioners violated the public’s constitutional right-to-know and agreed to require the commission make their wildlife decisions and dealings more transparent.
missoulacurrent.com
