Fwp December commission meeting

[cgasner1]

Wyoming started doing this a few years ago. It has had little effect. I do know one ranch that has used it as an opportunity to let youth kill bulls which is neat. It is a draw for adults and otc for youth

 

[shoots-straight]

I couldn’t agree more with you Eric.

Do you guys think there's a lot of thought process involved in how they get appointed now? How responsive have these commissions been?

A nonpartisan elected position would be light years ahead of what we have now.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

Do you guys think there's a lot of thought process involved in how they get appointed now? How responsive have these commissions been?

A nonpartisan elected position would be light years ahead of what we have now.

Yes I think Governors put thought in their appointments. I have not been surprised by any made by the last four Governors.

A nonpartisan election of F&W Commissioners would probably work as well as the nonpartisan election of Public Service Commissioners: A total disaster.

 

[SAJ-99]

Cities like Missoula would always carry R2 and Bozeman would always carry R3, etc. I believe it’s best to keep them appointed and politics as far removed from the F&W Commission as possible.

I think the dream is dead. You now have a commission entirely appointed by one Governor. How is that removing politics? Sure Missoula would carry R2 and Bozeman R3, but it would at least have differing views as R6 and R7 would be carried by landowners. There is nothing wrong with people with different political views being on the commission. It would be nice if they just provided guiderails for the biologists to do their job, but I don't think that is going to happen without a change in Helena. Historically, political balance in government is generally a good thing because it prevents the crazies from having a large impact. So much for that. I don't like the trend we are on, regardless if it is Montana going full speed toward The King's Deer, or WA moving toward eliminating any and all game management.

 

[rogerthat]

Yes I think Governors put thought in their appointments. I have not been surprised by any made by the last four Governors.

A nonpartisan election of F&W Commissioners would probably work as well as the nonpartisan election of Public Service Commissioners: A total disaster.

The current commission is a total disaster. Every amendment proposed last commission meeting was a MOGA proposal. Luckily MOGAs proposals weren’t a disaster but if you’re a public land hunter, you have no representation on this commission.

 

[rogerthat]

I think the way to do this would be private land tags for less desired animals, say three point or less for mule deer and five point or less for elk. I agree with @WanderWoman, give out private land tags for trophies and there are going to be lot of unintended results.

I think it’s worth trying for archery permits in the highwoods and snowies right now. Let the n bar have as many archery permits as they want(kind of the case now anyway). How else do you keep adequate hunting pressure on private without crushing the public in those units?

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

The current commission is a total disaster. Every amendment proposed last commission meeting was a MOGA proposal. Luckily MOGAs proposals weren’t a disaster but if you’re a public land hunter, you have no representation on this commission.

I agree with you. It was well known this is what we would get with Gianforte. In my opinion, it’s still not a good reason to further politicize the F&W Commission by making the positions elected.

 

[cgasner1]

I agree with you. It was well known this is what we would get with Gianforte. In my opinion, it’s still not a good reason to further politicize the F&W Commission by making the positions elected.

Idk having a commission that answered to the voters inside of the region rather than the governor doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

Idk having a commission that answered to the voters inside of the region rather than the governor doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me

Commissioners are already supposed to represent each region and not the governor. I worry about a politically elected commissioner only giving access to their largest campaign donors or political allies.

 

[SAJ-99]

Commissioners are already supposed to represent each region and not the governor. I worry about a politically elected commissioner only giving access to their largest campaign donors or political allies.

How do you think the commissioners got to their position? I mean, I get your concern, but it literally already happened and you argue against a change. I’m so confused by this thread. Answering to voters isn’t more political, it’s democracy. It certainly comes with its own problems, but the more people argue against it the more I like the idea.

 

[MTGomer]

I think the dream is dead. You now have a commission entirely appointed by one Governor. How is that removing politics? Sure Missoula would carry R2 and Bozeman R3, but it would at least have differing views as R6 and R7 would be carried by landowners. There is nothing wrong with people with different political views being on the commission.

Fair point but anti hunting transplant/liberals vs anti hunting ranchers isn’t exactly utopia for hunters.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

How do you think the commissioners got to their position? I mean, I get your concern, but it literally already happened and you argue against a change. I’m so confused by this thread. Answering to voters isn’t more political, it’s democracy. It certainly comes with its own problems, but the more people argue against it the more I like the idea.

There have been many apolitical appointments in the past by both parties and it worked well. It can happen again.

I’m only arguing against injecting more politics into it, which I think would occur if it were an elected position.

I understand your frustration with the current situation, I’m with you. I’m just not ready to upend a system that has worked well for so long.

 

[cgasner1]

There have been many apolitical appointments in the past by both parties and it worked well. It can happen again.

I’m only arguing against injecting more politics into it, which I think would occur if it were an elected position.

I understand your frustration with the current situation, I’m with you. I’m just not ready to upend a system that has worked well for so long.

Has it? Let’s say this commission decided tomorrow to change our season structure to pick your weapon. You don’t think that’s gonna have a huge blow back on the governor? Any serious changes is gonna cause issues. Like it or not I think we need separation of church and state

 

[rogerthat]

There have been many apolitical appointments in the past by both parties and it worked well. It can happen again.

I’m only arguing against injecting more politics into it, which I think would occur if it were an elected position.

I understand your frustration with the current situation, I’m with you. I’m just not ready to upend a system that has worked well for so long.

I agree with your first paragraph very much but as you said, that was the past. The current political environment doesn’t mirror that of the past. Statesmanship, gentleman’s honor, and doing what’s right are also of the past. Mantras of “get yours at all costs”, “cheat because it’s justified”, and “let’s get even” have replaced those. A system that can be gamed now, will be. If we want a system that reflects the governors agenda, why have the commission at all? The governor can just issue decrees from his office. Times have changed, sometimes you have to change with them.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

Has it? Let’s say this commission decided tomorrow to change our season structure to pick your weapon. You don’t think that’s gonna have a huge blow back on the governor? Any serious changes is gonna cause issues. Like it or not I think we need separation of church and state

You’re acting surprised by what’s happening. You shouldn’t be. It was all on the table when Montana elected Gianforte. Why do you think it will be different if Montana elects its F&W Commissioners?

 

[cgasner1]

You’re acting surprised by what’s happening. You shouldn’t be. It was all on the table when Montana elected Gianforte. Why do you think it will be different if Montana elects its F&W Commissioners?

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.

 

[Hunting Wife]

The only thing electing commissioners provides are seven new opportunities for politics and money to be inserted into wildlife management. If you think average everyday sportsmen are going to be elected into these positions or will have more of a voice, you are fooling yourself. Look at the privatization lobby. They have endless money to burn to further their “get mine” agenda.

The term “non-partisan election” is a joke. Or did everyone miss the obscene amount of money and partisan mud-slinging in the most recent Montana judicial election?

Montana’s wildlife is a commodity, and there isn’t a doubt in my mind that elected positions will be dominated by moneyed interests.

 

[SAJ-99]

The only thing electing commissioners provides are seven new opportunities for politics and money to be inserted into wildlife management. If you think average everyday sportsmen are going to be elected into these positions or will have more of a voice, you are fooling yourself. Look at the privatization lobby. They have endless money to burn to further their “get mine” agenda.

The term “non-partisan election” is a joke. Or did everyone miss the obscene amount of money and partisan mud-slinging in the most recent Montana judicial election?

Montana’s wildlife is a commodity, and there isn’t a doubt in my mind that elected positions will be dominated by moneyed interests.

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

 

[Nameless Range]

I think the debate is pointless because changing the constitution would be harder than changing commission membership, but it’s the off season.

This is where I’m at. It’s frustrating as a citizen to have no recourse against commissioners who exhibit a sort of corruption, or gross ineptitude, but that is where we are at.

 

[Eric Albus]

I doubt the grass is much greener. Quotas were set too high. A trend that Montana is consistent on.

Agreed. Quotas were set to pretty much reflect 100% draw for residents. If we are going to LE permits, make the permit worth drawing.
This makes me think we need to explore a private land only permit and a public land permit. Limit pressure on accessible lands and turn up pressure on private land to help disperse elk.
What needs be thought through is any unintended consequences might result before going to a measure this drastic.