I've always given the default benefit to FWP when it comes to season settings and such. I've relied on the good people within the agency with a lot more knowledge than me to make the final decisions. But over the years, the centralization of power to Helena makes it hard for the Regional folks on the ground to make much progress. Or, at least that is my observation.
I get it, the Governor who appoints the Director, tells the Director he/she wants to have his/her thumb on any big decisions, and pretty soon even selecting what brand of socks wardens can wear becomes "a big decision" that must come from Helena. That trend is my observation from 30+ years of being involved. From that, I've come to the conclusion that this centralization to Helena is part of what creates a lot of friction. I can't comment as to whether or not that is the feeling within the agency, but from the outside looking in, that is what I see in the outcomes we have.
When you centralize decision making, as FWP has over the decades, the power becomes concentrated in the hands of very few. Those who can get their hands on the levers of power end up with far greater influence than they proportionately should have. Decentralized decision making reverses that trend and makes it harder for certain actors to have exaggerated influence on the process and outcome. Reading some of the other options being considered to clean up how the Commission/FWP operates, such as electing Commissioners, ballot initiatives, etc. makes me wonder why we would have to take such radical steps to get better outcomes.
What really got me thinking on all of this was to see Region 4 stick their neck out with some new mule deer proposals. Maybe I'm completely out to lunch with what I'm about to write.
My thoughts are also influenced by seeing how other states have "Regional" or county wildlife boards or councils. Thus you don't have the "one size fits all" idea we see in Montana. Look at Wyoming; there are widely different season dates/structures among units for the same species. They are far from "one size fits all" and they end up with a superior product by doing this extra work.
Nevada has Regional committees. They have very little legislative meddling in their management. They adjust things regularly and do a lot of experimenting.
I'll give credit to UT, a state I've been critical of for auctioning the best of their tags in large numbers, for trying something new with mule deer. They are going to shuffle the deck and try something new in multiple units, while leaving a few units untouched to serve as the baseline for these experiments. Nobody knows how these experiments will work, but at least they aren't just accepting the same disappointing outcomes under what I call "Institutional Inertia," or "that's how we've always done it."
Now to Montana, specifically as it relates to deer and elk. I think about these issues in the context of Montana's diversity and many of the discussions that have happened on this forum. Comments on this forum are always reminding me how different every Region of Montana is when it comes to geography/topography, public/private mix, primary big game species, predator levels, and hunting cultures. If ever there is a state that needs to break out of the "one size fits all" mode, it is Montana.
I would like to see some experiments, by Region, crafted by those who are most impacted by the season dates and structures in those Regions. We don't have to accept identical season dates/types/structures statewide. Or the same season dates for deer that we have for elk.
I look at what Region 4 proposed for mule deer, however small of a step that is, kudos for trying something new. It might help Region 4. Without other Regions being willing/allowed to experiment, the Region 4 experiments might push hunters from Region 4 to other Regions, compounding the issues in those Regions.
I'd like to see the deer hunters in Region 7 come up with their own season dates, lengths, etc. and give it a try. I'd like to see Region 1 and 2 come up with new ideas for a heavily covered landscape that has more whitetails than mule deer, and give that a try. I'd like to see Region 3 come up with their own elk ideas and give that a try. I'd like to see (insert idea/experiment here). I'm not tied to any outcome, just interested in hunters feeling they have more input to the outcomes in their favorite areas and their backyard and not having the entire state be subjected to whatever group/person(s) can grab the levers of power in Helena.
It just seems crazy to have the same policies/season structures from 1980s in a state as large and diverse as Montana, with a resident population that has increased 50% in the last 30 years, with a huge transfer of private lands to non-resident landowners in the last 25 years. The fact that we are still in the 1980s I attribute to institutional inertia.
Change is always more work. The experiments would not be perfect, but hopefully over the next ten-twenty years we'd come up with ideas that work to address some of the issues that the Department, hunters, and landowners struggle with. I suspect some of it would be "status quo," as some of what we currently have is likely a product of the most palatable of the imperfect options available.
I'm interested in a discussion about decentralizing the management from Helena and giving more autonomy to the Regions and the people who hunt/live in those Regions. I'd like to encourage more experiments by folks out in the Regions, working with their Regional Commissioner and others, and hopefully giving more reasons for Commissioners stick to the many important issues in their own Region (yeah, that is pointed at Commissioner Tabor). And hopefully reduce some of the legislative meddling (likely a pipe dream). I do not feel that we have to elect Commissioners or have ballot initiative to arrive at better outcomes.
Maybe I'm crazy and we end up right back to what we have today. If so, fine by me, so long as it is a process that reflects what a majority of people want.
Interested in what the Hunt Talk community would think, even knowing this audience is far more engaged and at a different point in their hunting lives than a cross section of Montana hunters.
I get it, the Governor who appoints the Director, tells the Director he/she wants to have his/her thumb on any big decisions, and pretty soon even selecting what brand of socks wardens can wear becomes "a big decision" that must come from Helena. That trend is my observation from 30+ years of being involved. From that, I've come to the conclusion that this centralization to Helena is part of what creates a lot of friction. I can't comment as to whether or not that is the feeling within the agency, but from the outside looking in, that is what I see in the outcomes we have.
When you centralize decision making, as FWP has over the decades, the power becomes concentrated in the hands of very few. Those who can get their hands on the levers of power end up with far greater influence than they proportionately should have. Decentralized decision making reverses that trend and makes it harder for certain actors to have exaggerated influence on the process and outcome. Reading some of the other options being considered to clean up how the Commission/FWP operates, such as electing Commissioners, ballot initiatives, etc. makes me wonder why we would have to take such radical steps to get better outcomes.
What really got me thinking on all of this was to see Region 4 stick their neck out with some new mule deer proposals. Maybe I'm completely out to lunch with what I'm about to write.
My thoughts are also influenced by seeing how other states have "Regional" or county wildlife boards or councils. Thus you don't have the "one size fits all" idea we see in Montana. Look at Wyoming; there are widely different season dates/structures among units for the same species. They are far from "one size fits all" and they end up with a superior product by doing this extra work.
Nevada has Regional committees. They have very little legislative meddling in their management. They adjust things regularly and do a lot of experimenting.
I'll give credit to UT, a state I've been critical of for auctioning the best of their tags in large numbers, for trying something new with mule deer. They are going to shuffle the deck and try something new in multiple units, while leaving a few units untouched to serve as the baseline for these experiments. Nobody knows how these experiments will work, but at least they aren't just accepting the same disappointing outcomes under what I call "Institutional Inertia," or "that's how we've always done it."
Now to Montana, specifically as it relates to deer and elk. I think about these issues in the context of Montana's diversity and many of the discussions that have happened on this forum. Comments on this forum are always reminding me how different every Region of Montana is when it comes to geography/topography, public/private mix, primary big game species, predator levels, and hunting cultures. If ever there is a state that needs to break out of the "one size fits all" mode, it is Montana.
I would like to see some experiments, by Region, crafted by those who are most impacted by the season dates and structures in those Regions. We don't have to accept identical season dates/types/structures statewide. Or the same season dates for deer that we have for elk.
I look at what Region 4 proposed for mule deer, however small of a step that is, kudos for trying something new. It might help Region 4. Without other Regions being willing/allowed to experiment, the Region 4 experiments might push hunters from Region 4 to other Regions, compounding the issues in those Regions.
I'd like to see the deer hunters in Region 7 come up with their own season dates, lengths, etc. and give it a try. I'd like to see Region 1 and 2 come up with new ideas for a heavily covered landscape that has more whitetails than mule deer, and give that a try. I'd like to see Region 3 come up with their own elk ideas and give that a try. I'd like to see (insert idea/experiment here). I'm not tied to any outcome, just interested in hunters feeling they have more input to the outcomes in their favorite areas and their backyard and not having the entire state be subjected to whatever group/person(s) can grab the levers of power in Helena.
It just seems crazy to have the same policies/season structures from 1980s in a state as large and diverse as Montana, with a resident population that has increased 50% in the last 30 years, with a huge transfer of private lands to non-resident landowners in the last 25 years. The fact that we are still in the 1980s I attribute to institutional inertia.
Change is always more work. The experiments would not be perfect, but hopefully over the next ten-twenty years we'd come up with ideas that work to address some of the issues that the Department, hunters, and landowners struggle with. I suspect some of it would be "status quo," as some of what we currently have is likely a product of the most palatable of the imperfect options available.
I'm interested in a discussion about decentralizing the management from Helena and giving more autonomy to the Regions and the people who hunt/live in those Regions. I'd like to encourage more experiments by folks out in the Regions, working with their Regional Commissioner and others, and hopefully giving more reasons for Commissioners stick to the many important issues in their own Region (yeah, that is pointed at Commissioner Tabor). And hopefully reduce some of the legislative meddling (likely a pipe dream). I do not feel that we have to elect Commissioners or have ballot initiative to arrive at better outcomes.
Maybe I'm crazy and we end up right back to what we have today. If so, fine by me, so long as it is a process that reflects what a majority of people want.
Interested in what the Hunt Talk community would think, even knowing this audience is far more engaged and at a different point in their hunting lives than a cross section of Montana hunters.
