Local Working Groups and Their Influence on Wildlife Management

[Nameless Range]

This article from the Montana Free Press on the success of the Devil's Kitchen Working Group got me thinking.

Hunting for elk solutions in Devil’s Kitchen

Could an unconventional approach help Montana navigate elk management issues?

montanafreepress.org

Locally for me, it brings to mind The Elkhorns -the nation's only Wildlife Management Unit - which have the state's most sought after elk tag, enormous amounts of general hunting opportunity, large amounts of elk, and little landowner/elk consternation relative to the rest of the state . Many years ago the Elkhorn Working Group, a contingent of local landowners, sportsmen/women, and state and federal agencies, all sat down and came up with management solutions and a spirit of coordination that worked for the landscape - and continue to work today.

As is said in the MTFP article, "Cole said he attributes the group’s success to “all the magic of human beings interacting” and the spirit of compromise and consensus that it embraced. " I think an important thing to remember in the Age of the Internet is that the world is a different place when folks meet face to face.

Further, one of the items that the FWP's Elk Management Advisory Group solicited comment on was whether or not FWP should establish local working groups. I think there is nuance to this, in terms of who is chosen, getting federal and state partners involved, etc. but I believe it to be the case that local working groups are the tried and true model for improved management and relations between people when it comes to elk. I don't think they are a silver bullet and I don't think it is easy, but I think they need to be a part of long-term management solutions.

I know about the Devils Kitchen, and the Elkhorn Working Group, but are there other local working groups out there that have been successful? Doesn't have to be limited to Montana. If so, did the success wane and why? If not, why don't you think they were successful?

Picture for fun from a hike to the top of Casey Peak in the Elkhorns the other day.

 

[Nameless Range]

To bump this with a thought:

The two aforementioned groups came together and influenced management on the landscape - both resulting in hunting districts that were permitted. Though certain types of general hunting opportunity exist on the landscape in both, both have highly sought after permits associated with them. Both also may have been successful due to favorable geographies - most of the elk in the Elkhorns winter and summer on public lands, and the Devils Kitchen Group had the wintering ground of the Beartooth Game Range to lean on.

How much of a hindrance is general tag (mature) bull elk opportunity for good and collaborative solutions to elk management that can last? Does one create friction for the other? It's a small sample size, I know.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I read this article today. These grassroots collaborative coalitions of regular people with a stake in the game have achieved some great conservation successes.

All I know for sure is that the more politicians get involved in “solutions”, the worse things seem to be getting and the more hostile and volatile the relations between stakeholders.

 

[Oak]

I was curious to read responses to this, as I have only been involved in two very unsuccessful working groups. They both had the goal of reducing bighorn/domestic sheep conflicts on public lands. They were both doomed to failure because one side came to the table with the goal of not losing a single AUM, and politics prevented federal and state agencies from participating in a meaningful way. Imagine participating as a federal employee and having staff members of senators and representatives sitting in the back of the room as non-member "observers."

 

[Nameless Range]

I was curious to read responses to this, as I have only been involved in two very unsuccessful working groups. They both had the goal of reducing bighorn/domestic sheep conflicts on public lands. They were both doomed to failure because one side came to the table with the goal of not losing a single AUM, and politics prevented federal and state agencies from participating in a meaningful way. Imagine participating as a federal employee and having staff members of senators and representatives sitting in the back of the room as non-member "observers."

I don’t think it’s easy and I don’t think it’s a guarantee. The working group I am most familiar with worked very hard to get where they are now. I was told that early on the conversations were not easy, but they achieve some sort of consensus and it has been long lasting.

To me though, the minute you have political representation on a working group, it’s no longer “local”. That said, there are many federal members.

One thing I am interested in his why these groups fail when they do, and why they are successful when they are.

 

[Nameless Range]

Thought about this thread today as I encounter various frustrations in efforts I am either involved in or are aware of .

Unlike the title of the post, I’m not thinking necessarily of wildlife related efforts, but of collaboration as a whole – could be land management, could be wildlife. I believe strongly in collaboration as the only real tool to implement change for people without big-time political or financial levers. That said, I wonder about the long-term viability of Working Groups/Collaboratives/etc.

Often it seems, a collaborative or a working group is spun up to address an acute effort. They put a hell of a lot of effort in up front, and do their best to solve the problem. Afterward, successful or not, they can either move into a sort of monitoring phase regarding their initial effort, find new problems to solve, or dissolve for various reasons. It seems incredibly hard to find new problems to solve with the same efficacy with which the initial problem was tackled.

When I think about who is really successful in the long term when it comes to implementing change on a landscape aside from professional organizations/non-profits, it’s hard to come up with examples of volunteers keeping the momentum. I know about local rod and gun clubs and their historic success, and I know about local working groups and their successes tackling acute problems, but do any retain their power? Most I am aware of have not.

I feel like more often than not, these collaborative creations regress into a land of dinks and dunks – tiny things that matter, but are hard to discern from just feel-goodery. It's hard to keep engagement at that point.

This whole stream of consciousness comes from something I heard some billionaire say on a podcast today that rung true to me: “When bureaucracies become more and more formalized, they become less and less functional.” He was talking about government, and I can’t help but think of the Citizens Advisory Groups FWP has spun up: Functional? Feel-goodery? Sure rhymes with some of the things I have been involved with too.

Personally, I’ve joined boards and working groups that I believe in, but beyond the initial efforts they/we were involved in, it can be hard to tell what the hell we’re doing. Sure, mission statements. Sure, functions and authorities. But at some point, and in talking to others involved in similar things, it can eventually feel like you're just going through the motions.



Thank you for humoring me.

 

[SAJ-99]

Thought about this thread today as I encounter various frustrations in efforts I am either involved in or are aware of .

Unlike the title of the post, I’m not thinking necessarily of wildlife related efforts, but of collaboration as a whole – could be land management, could be wildlife. I believe strongly in collaboration as the only real tool to implement change for people without big-time political or financial levers. That said, I wonder about the long-term viability of Working Groups/Collaboratives/etc.

Often it seems, a collaborative or a working group is spun up to address an acute effort. They put a hell of a lot of effort in up front, and do their best to solve the problem. Afterward, successful or not, they can either move into a sort of monitoring phase regarding their initial effort, find new problems to solve, or dissolve for various reasons. It seems incredibly hard to find new problems to solve with the same efficacy with which the initial problem was tackled.

When I think about who is really successful in the long term when it comes to implementing change on a landscape aside from professional organizations/non-profits, it’s hard to come up with examples of volunteers keeping the momentum. I know about local rod and gun clubs and their historic success, and I know about local working groups and their successes tackling acute problems, but do any retain their power? Most I am aware of have not.

I feel like more often than not, these collaborative creations regress into a land of dinks and dunks – tiny things that matter, but are hard to discern from just feel-goodery. It's hard to keep engagement at that point.

This whole stream of consciousness comes from something I heard some billionaire say on a podcast today that rung true to me: “When bureaucracies become more and more formalized, they become less and less functional.” He was talking about government, and I can’t help but think of the Citizens Advisory Groups FWP has spun up: Functional? Feel-goodery? Sure rhymes with some of the things I have been involved with too.

Personally, I’ve joined boards and working groups that I believe in, but beyond the initial efforts they/we were involved in, it can be hard to tell what the hell we’re doing. Sure, mission statements. Sure, functions and authorities. But at some point, and in talking to others involved in similar things, it can eventually feel like you're just going through the motions.

View attachment 337199

Thank you for humoring me.

As a society, we continue to move further from compromise and collaboration as a solution to anything. It’s unfortunate. And when you add $ to the mix it just becomes easier for some to see how they are not getting theirs. I will also say that people have become even more impatient. Time is almost an enemy. So when they don’t see results, they get discouraged and start to become less engaged.

 

[Nameless Range]

As a society, we continue to move further from compromise and collaboration as a solution to anything. It’s unfortunate. And when you add $ to the mix it just becomes easier for some to see how they are not getting theirs. I will also say that people have become even more impatient. Time is almost an enemy. So when they don’t see results, they get discouraged and start to become less engaged.

I agree. I also wonder though, if the world is more complicated - more obstacles - and it is harder to get stuff done.

 

[SAJ-99]

I agree. I also wonder though, if the world is more complicated - more obstacles - and it is harder to get stuff done.

Absolutely. I read posts on threads here implying that all of our problems are from not enough logging or controlled burns on Federal lands. All I can think is "It is not that simple". But even easy improvements are almost impossible when people either don't want to sacrifice anything or what to know what is in it for them. It reminds me of the Big Fin's podcast called "Burnout is real". It is almost like the fight for a specific thing that is tangible is easier than the fight for incremental improvement.

 

[Bonasababy]

Took me some decades to realize and fully live this, but real progress often requires extra effort and the patience expended over some time. If it was easy and simple things would be better already.