Montana - Time to Shake it Up?

[Nameless Range]

A lot of very effective Working Groups were born via meetings of minds that weren't public initially. This, not being a public contingent but just one of knowledgeable folks who care, I think it is fine to keep it simple, allow conversations to flow freely and not have the spectre of eyes watching influence the brainstorming.

 

[SAJ-99]

but in no way should 8 highly opinionated people be the ones grouping up and dictating policy that affects everyone. At least record the conversation.

I think we should remember that this meeting is just a starter. Nothing that comes out of it will be policy. I think recording the conversation is a good idea, if possible. There is going to be a lot of responsibility to the individual assigned to "run" the meeting. Keeping this on the rails might be tough because the problems in one region or unit might be different than in another and everyone has solutions.

That is why I say they will all agree on getting the NRs. It's low-hanging fruit. I think we all agree that the number of NR tags is way too high, but a large % of those were B tags. Keeping it revenue neutral is the big challenge. You don't have to worry at all about keeping NRs "happy".

 

[sclancy27]

I think we should remember that this meeting is just a starter. Nothing that comes out of it will be policy. I think recording the conversation is a good idea, if possible. There is going to be a lot of responsibility to the individual assigned to "run" the meeting. Keeping this on the rails might be tough because the problems in one region or unit might be different than in another and everyone has solutions.

That is why I say they will all agree on getting the NRs. It's low-hanging fruit. I think we all agree that the number of NR tags is way too high, but a large % of those were B tags. Keeping it revenue neutral is the big challenge. You don't have to worry at all about keeping NRs "happy".

Doesn't it make sense to set it up with a regionally specific meeting first with the sponsor and other stakeholders prior to a statewide meeting? That way the sponsor is able to have a stable of items relevant to their region and ideas of how it (or how it may not) pertain to mule deer management across the state as a whole.

 

[Elky Welky]

A lot of very effective Working Groups were born via meetings of minds that weren't public initially. This, not being a public contingent but just one of knowledgeable folks who care, I think it is fine to keep it simple, allow conversations to flow freely and not have the spectre of eyes watching influence the brainstorming.

I'd normally agree with you if this were on a smaller scale and more local, but what's being presented here is a statewide meeting between more than just knowledgeable folks who care, but people who already wield significant and sometimes outsized influence, and it is being organized out in the open. Also, there's great value in knowing how a group comes to it's conclusions. If this group comes up with some great ideas, or argues for a while about workable solutions, then it will be far easier to get people on board if they understand the logic that went into those discussions.

 

[bigsky2]

I don't really think "screw the NR" is a tradition in MT, however, given that the issue everyone is pointing to is the number of loopholes that exists to give NRs unlimited opportunity here. Quite the opposite. As is frequently pointed out by some, the bottom line is what is most important, and since NR's disproportionately affect the bottom line, then we should sacrifice our state's limited resources, be it land, access or wildlife, to keep NRs, and in turn, the coffers, happy.

I'd have to agree with SAJ-99. It sure seems that "screw the NR" is a popular sentiment among Montanans. It's even a common attitude among residents in central and eastern MT that western MT residents aren't deserving of elk permits on the eastern side of the state.

I definitely think we shouldn't be so reliant on NR dollars.

 

[Elky Welky]

I think we should remember that this meeting is just a starter. Nothing that comes out of it will be policy. I think recording the conversation is a good idea, if possible. There is going to be a lot of responsibility to the individual assigned to "run" the meeting. Keeping this on the rails might be tough because the problems in one region or unit might be different than in another and everyone has solutions.

That is why I say they will all agree on getting the NRs. It's low-hanging fruit. I think we all agree that the number of NR tags is way too high, but a large % of those were B tags. Keeping it revenue neutral is the big challenge. You don't have to worry at all about keeping NRs "happy".

All great points. I think the low hanging fruit on the management side is that they equate NR "happiness" with revenue neutrality. It is easier for the state to keep the loopholes open for B tags so the money keeps flowing than to close them and look for different streams.

 

[Elky Welky]

I'd have to agree with SAJ-99. It sure seems that "screw the NR" is a popular sentiment among Montanans. It's even a common attitude among residents in central and eastern MT that western MT residents aren't deserving of elk permits on the eastern side of the state.

Yes, it is a popular sentiment among Montanans, but it is not a popular sentiment among those who are in charge. The legislature, governors office, and some in FWP, etc., love NRs, and historically they've flung the doors wide open and don't really seem to have any interest in shutting them and opening new windows. Too much work.

 

[SAJ-99]

Doesn't it make sense to set it up with a regionally specific meeting first with the sponsor and other stakeholders prior to a statewide meeting? That way the sponsor is able to have a stable of items relevant to their region and ideas of how it (or how it may not) pertain to mule deer management across the state as a whole.

Makes some sense. A lot can probably be accomplished via email or zoom calls too. I think it got changed to being more Mule Deer specific, probably because that is the most obvious problem, but there is more going on. I think a big goal is just to get two groups, Public-land hunters and Outfitters, to talk. These two groups have been sniping at each other for a long time and it hasn't been productive. Maybe working together, or at least trying, would be? The goals are the same.

At some point, even if everyone in this meeting comes up with great ideas and agrees among themselves, they have to get it through the other players in game: legislature, executive branch, FWP (bios and leadership), other outfitters, and other external groups. We don't like to acknowledge this, but HT can be a bit of an echo chamber. There are plenty of hunters out there that don't want anything to change.

 

[cgasner1]

Doesn't it make sense to set it up with a regionally specific meeting first with the sponsor and other stakeholders prior to a statewide meeting? That way the sponsor is able to have a stable of items relevant to their region and ideas of how it (or how it may not) pertain to mule deer management across the state as a whole.

Plenty of time to try and put a meeting together in your area or have a chat with the guy coming over.

 

[Mtn-time]

Not necessarily if you’re “displacing” several thousand or more hunters who want to hunt those same HDs.

If all those hunters quit hunting mule deer, or switched to wtd, then maybe so. And yeah, maybe better odds in a unit like 270, but I’m thinking about the formerly-general units that would theoretically go to LE.

And whatever the quotas would be would make a difference of course, too.

With LE, it is very possible that NR will have better odds in drawing than a Resident.

 

[406dn]

I definitely think we shouldn't be so reliant on NR dollars.

The largest unintended consequence of raising non resident license prices so much higher than resident licenses is that unwittingly, a lot of political clout went to non resident hunters and outfitting.

It can't be changed without resident hunters shouldering a significantly larger share of the license revenue stream. IMO the price of a resident elk tag is ridiculously low. That amount of money spent on fuel won't get you to the trailhead.

 

[SAJ-99]

The largest unintended consequence of raising non resident license prices so much higher than resident licenses is that unwittingly, a lot of political clout went to non resident hunters and outfitting.

It can't be changed without resident hunters shouldering a significantly larger share of the license revenue stream. IMO the price of a resident elk tag is ridiculously low. That amount of money spent on fuel won't get you to the trailhead.

From the 2023 Book

NR Big Game Combo $1213
Deer Combo $709
Elk Combo $1023

If you eliminate the Big Game combo and split the tags and sell them, the additional revenue is $519 for each tag. That is over 14 R deer and elk licenses. Someone check my math. This is just "Pick a cervid". Not pick a region, or pick a unit, or pick a week. Seems like a no-brainer.

Solutions don't need to be new and unique. Look at how other states structure tags. Everyone is seeing the same decline in MD. Other states are just ahead of MT. Probably due to "traditional Montana values" or something.

 

[Ben Lamb]

From the 2023 Book

NR Big Game Combo $1213
Deer Combo $709
Elk Combo $1023

If you eliminate the Big Game combo and split the tags and sell them, the additional revenue is $519 for each tag. That is over 14 R deer and elk licenses. Someone check my math. This is just "Pick a cervid". Not pick a region, or pick a unit, or pick a week. Seems like a no-brainer.

Solutions don't need to be new and unique. Look at how other states structure tags. Everyone is seeing the same decline in MD. Other states are just ahead of MT. Probably due to "traditional Montana values" or something.

If you are going to start splitting up license types, etc, then you need to have a fiscal understanding of what the does. What does the loss of earmarked funding for certain programs mean for those programs, what is the loss to the overall General License Account and what does that revenue need to look like on the resident side to keep funding stable and robust.

 

[SAJ-99]

What does the loss of earmarked funding for certain programs mean for those programs, what is the loss to the overall General License Account and what does that revenue need to look like on the resident side to keep funding stable and robust.

True. I assumed that the funds from the BG combo go to the same place as funds from the Deer and Elk combos. But it's Montana, so I realize this could be an incorrect assumption. You would know best as to how that might affect funding for other programs. And in my example, there isn't a loss of funding, rather there is an increase. I didn't suggest cuts to anything, only "Pick a cervid". You could just reduce the discount for the Big Game combo. That Ben Lamb spreadsheet should be front and center in any conversation because even the greatest idea has zero chance without the $ numbers backing it up.

 

[Ben Lamb]

True. I assumed that the funds from the BG combo go to the same place as funds from the Deer and Elk combos. But it's Montana, so I realize this could be an incorrect assumption. You would know best as to how that might affect funding for other programs. And in my example, there isn't a loss of funding, rather there is an increase. I didn't suggest cuts to anything, only "Pick a cervid". You could just reduce the discount for the Big Game combo. That Ben Lamb spreadsheet should be front and center in any conversation because even the greatest idea has zero chance without the $ numbers backing it up.

The B10 & B11 have prescriptions on where the money can be spent, earmarks for conservation so to speak, similar to LWCF getting a portion of offshore development money. Same with the NR Duck & Upland licenses. Those earmarks go away when you start to mess too much with the current structure, per USFWS issues with earmarks and legislative control over funding (a good impulse but not necessarily works for this mission).


FWP Budget overview: https://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/fiscal/Session-2021/SubCom-C/FWP-summary.pdf

A snazzy budget & guide to the 2023 session (Current budget): https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...e/2023/budget-book-reduced-file-size--v18.pdf

MCA Title 87-1-6: Finance: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0870/chapter_0010/part_0060/sections_index.html

The issue of NR's providing over 70% of the revenue for the agency is one that Montanans need to decide how to approach, but remember that you're sacrificing 10% for 90% when you do so. The revenue estimate over losing the dollars will have to come out of your pocket.

 

[Sytes]

Curious, any thought to setting up a Microsoft teams meet the main participants are those representing from hunt talk and additional that are muted able to watch and see the conversation exchange with one moderator? Once you guys have your ideas together with some basis for conversing.

Sorry voice to text you get the idea though.

 

[Bulldog0156]

That’s because they classify all deer as one species. Even if it’s a special draw for mule deer there could be several hundred whitetails killed.

That is not correct. They broke it out by species and what I can tell you with confidence is that both numbers were incorrect.

 

[6mm Remington]

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.

Some great ideas you have suggested. Here's something you might consider. I am!

FWP looks for members for mule deer advisory council

HELENA – Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks is forming an advisory council to help begin the process of developing a new statewide mule deer plan. The Mule Deer Citizens Advisory Council (MDCAC) will consist of 10 to 12 people and will identify expectations for the new mule deer plan, which

bozemanmagazine.com

FWP Looks For Members For Mule Deer Advisory Council | Montana FWP

FWP looks for members for mule deer advisory council

fwp.mt.gov

 

[DFS]

I'd normally agree with you if this were on a smaller scale and more local, but what's being presented here is a statewide meeting between more than just knowledgeable folks who care, but people who already wield significant and sometimes outsized influence, and it is being organized out in the open. Also, there's great value in knowing how a group comes to it's conclusions. If this group comes up with some great ideas, or argues for a while about workable solutions, then it will be far easier to get people on board if they understand the logic that went into those discussions.

I think the point of the exercise is to find some common ground from outfitters and Montana hunters. It would be a long way from any changes.

 

[huntin24/7]

I’m glad guys are bringing up the issues with whitetail as well. I’m guilty of focusing on mule deer concerns and sometimes forgetting whitetail which many of us also love to hunt. I’d like to see whitetail doe tags, when necessary to be issued, be issued by unit instead of region. For instance, you can have areas of predominantly ag and river bottom that might have too high of a whitetail population warranting doe tags and at the same time, a different unit in the same region is mostly prairie or mountain habitat where numbers are much lower and can’t handle the additional harvest.