MT - Collaborative Solutions for Problematic Wildlife Concentrations

[Sytes]

The Private Land/Public Wildlife

The proposal outlines a three-phase process of progressive actions delivered through a new FWP program, ranging from one-on-one facilitation of affected parties through establishment of a local PWC solutions committee involving a broader range of interested parties up to a final stage involving a statewide PWC committee comprised of landowners, hunters, outfitters, and a member each from the FWP Commission and Board of Livestock.

The draft recommendation can be found at http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/
The Private Land/Public Wildlife Council is a group of hunters, anglers, landowners, outfitters, a FWP Commission, and two legislators, appointed by Governor Schweitzer, charged with making recommendation to the Governor and Legislature regarding hunting and fishing access, public wildlife and private lands, and related issues. More information about the PL/PW Council, including a list of current members and meeting summaries, can be found at: http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunterAccess/plpw/

If I understand, this follows along the lines of a committee fitting legislative and executive actions.? This a "give and take" process between the different representatives?

I would like to learn more on this before posting comments, pro or con. Anyone with insight on this able to shed some light?

COMMENT PROCESS AND DEADLINE
To submit comments electronically, this letter with the imbedded links can be found at the FWP website, www.fwp.mt.gov , on the Hunting Home page, http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/
under Opportunity for Public Comment.”

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hi Sytes,

PLPW has been around for a while, and serves as a citizen board that tries to help solve issues between landowners and sportsmen. Overall, it's been a very successful program which has brought forward ideas like "Come home to hunt," which allows former MT residents, who have a family sponsor, to get a license and lets them come home and hunt.

Their decisions do not carry the same weight as legislation, but they can influence policies and administrative rule in FWP. The current PLPW board is pretty well put together with some solid outfitter, landowner and sportsmen representation.

As for the proposal, PLPW was urged last year to take up the issue after Harboring legislation failed again in the legislature. The issue of animals being harbored on neighboring ranches or ranches closed to hunting altogether is causing some serious problems with wildlife managers. A good example of this is in the Madison (or at least was), where ranches that are now closed to public hunting concentrate large numbers of elk, creating a situation where objectives are tough to meet, and hunter opportunity is minimized at the right times.

As I understand the proposal, it would create a process where affected landowners could take their issues to a council that would help resolve the issue, and keep things out of court. It would also help keep FWP from making changes to regs in certain hunt areas where problematic concentrations of wildlife are currently occurring, such as going to antlerless harvest only (eliminating bucks and bulls).

I like this process personally. It gets to the heart of the matter but doesn't make it litigious, or legislative. It creates a more personable process where neighbors can work together to address the issue of problematic concentrations rather than just fight, and it will help increase the harvest of animals in targeted areas. We (MWF) haven't written any comments on it yet, but will have them done in the next couple of weeks.

 

[Sytes]

I would imagine this is a volunatry action by a concerned landowner to take it before this committee. Understanding the PL/PW's prior activity of a "think tank" type setup for recomendations to our Governor, Is this an expansion of the committee's ability to handle concerns addressed on a case by case consideration / vs functioning as an advisory board? Would/Are the meeting notes available to the public / or is there certain disclosure aspects involved?
Not familiar with the PL/PW committee: Does this give the committee executive authorities? Or more as a red tape breakthrough route to get information to the appropriate agency to evaluate the committee's recomendation?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes, it would be a voluntary program in that affected landowners would have to come to the PWC committee and file a grievance which will cost $350. The proposal does not create any new legal authority for the Dept. or the Commission and he proposal would not be administered under PLPW, but by FWP. FWP would establish a stakeholder committee of agricultural, landowner, outfitter and hunter interests, a member of the Board of Livestock and a member of the FWP Commission who would then adjudicate the process.

Past meeting summaries can be found here: http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunterAccess/plpw/meetingSummaries2010.html

If you want more detail on previous meetings, I would email Alan Charles at FWP. He's a the Admin for PLPW and is generally pretty responsive to requests.

If you are asking if the notes of an actual mediated process will be available, I don't know the answer to that.

The proposal starts as a one on one facilitated discussion and moves on from there. Phase two is a local PCW committee (to be established) which will make collaborative, consensus based recommendations for solving the issue. If that fails, then the State PCW committee would hold a hearing and make some recommendations, which have to have a super majority vote (7) to move forward to the FWP Commission, which would use the hammer of regulatory changes such as modified season structure.

I suppose you could look at this as more red tape to get to where you're trying to go, but what I like about this proposal is that it keeps it out of the courts, and fosters local solutions to local problems by having neighbors sit down together first. It also establishes a reasonable process for moving forward if there are serious issues that can't be resolved through an honest dialog.

 

[Sytes]

Thanks for the info, Ben.
Seems reasonable enough. Any pitfall potentials or other views to consider? Look forward to the review MWF will produce.

I suppose you could look at this as more red tape to get to where you're trying to go, but what I like about this proposal is that it keeps it out of the courts, and fosters local solutions to local problems by having neighbors sit down together first. It also establishes a reasonable process for moving forward if there are serious issues that can't be resolved through an honest dialog.

The red tape aspect - I was considering more as a means to cut through some of the gov't "fuzz". Certainly agree with you relating to the above bold text in your quote.
How does the "sportsman representation" hold up? I suppose concerns such as the 161 initiative to hit the ballot may produce some divisive debate? I suppose what I am inquiring - and people may not be able to answer, Is there comfortable representation of the public hunter? How are the committee members selected?

 

[Ben Lamb]

The EA lines out the selection process, but overall, I think it's important for hunter representation to be strong. The conversation that the board has had on this has focused on the make up of the committee, and the fear that one aspect could control the debate. I'm not sure how to craft the make up of the committee differently, but I do see some potential for one-sidedness, but that's the case with all appointed boards and commissions. The ruling party gets to make the rules. I have more faith than some that folks who get appointed to this will be willing to get rid of their differences and try and make things work (which seems to be the antithesis of MT wildlife politics at times).

That's the only red flag that immediately jumps out to me.

As for the red tape, yes, I think this process is pretty even keeled and results oriented. I don't see a lot of process for process' sake here.

 

[Sytes]

Of the articles found on this subject - this one follows along the lines as Ben desribed and breaks down the general fashion for how this works. Thought I would add this to compliment Ben's comments.
http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/article_d7c284aa-d435-11df-99c5-001cc4c002e0.html

For years, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has struggled with the problem of wildlife concentrated on one ranch causing problems for a neighbor.

In one incident near Pompeys Pillar a few years back, elk from an adjoining property would jump a fence at night to graze neighbors’ farm fields. Even though the neighbors allowed hunting, it proved ineffective as a control of the animals because they’d simply return before daylight to the adjoining property where they weren’t hunted, avoiding hunters.

Without the ability to hunt the animals, FWP couldn’t reduce the herd or eliminate the offending animals. Officials tried using scare tactics like propane-powered boom guns to shoo animals away. But the elk soon learned the guns weren’t a threat and returned. As a last resort, the agency employed a helicopter and sharpshooters to remove some of the animals, donating the meat to food banks. But no one was happy — none of the landowners, FWP or hunters who thought they should have been able to shoot the animals.

The Private Land/Public Wildlife Council has proposed a new solution it thinks might work — a mediation system designed to get landowners to work together to solve the problem.

“I feel pretty good with it,” said Mike Penfold, a Billings member of the council. “We’ve been working on it for four years looking at different options.”


Difficult situation

The problem centers around what the council has dubbed “problematic wildlife concentrations,” or PWC. The group defined the issue as “the intentional or unintentional concentration of big game animals where game management by hunting has not been able to be effectively utilized, resulting in negative impacts to neighboring areas/or and landowners, failure to achieve legally mandated Fish, Wildlife and Parks management objectives, and/or risk to domestic and wild herd health.”

Concentrations of wild animals, like elk and deer, have been shown to increase the risk of transmission of diseases like chronic wasting disease and brucellosis.

In a press release, FWP admitted the complexity of the situation, saying such concentrations of wildlife “pose significant risks to landowners and neighbors, the health of domestic and wildlife herds, Montana’s hunting heritage, and legally mandated game management objectives. There are currently only three options for recourse: going to court, going before the FWP Commission, or attempting to get new laws passed.”

For its part, the FWP Commission can modify license, permit and season structures.

“I like the definition we came up with that goes back to our heritage of managing wildlife through public hunting,” Penfold said. “It’s hunters who have brought wildlife back to such a robust status in the United States.”


Legislative solution

During the last legislative session, a bill was drafted that would have allowed FWP to haze animals off private property if complaints had been made by surrounding landowners. The idea was to keep animals moving, rather than guaranteeing them a safety zone. The bill was tabled in committee after being seen by some legislators as too heavy handed and a recipe for pitting neighbor against neighbor. It was during a hearing on the harboring bill that the PL/PW Council was suggested as a good place to resolve the issue.

The Private Land/Public Wildlife Council is composed of hunters, anglers, landowners, outfitters, a FWP Commission member and two legislators.

“Most of us felt there was something that had to be done that didn’t require a legislative solution, but didn’t violate private property rights,” Penfold said. “But we also have to consider public wildlife rights.”

Penfold said the proposal is not meant to diminish the value of outfitters and guides, or to people who lease property for hunting.

“All of us appreciate the value that outfitters and guides provide,” Penfold said. “They fill the gap for urbanized people to have a hunting experience but who don’t know how to approach it.”


How it would work

Under the three-tiered process devised by PL/PW, a landowner with a problem would initially contact a FWP wildlife biologist to seek a solution. Lack of hunting access cannot be the basis for a complaint.

“You would hope that in the first phase the landowners could come together and work out a solution,” Penfold said.

If no solution could be found, the landowner could pay $350 and apply for an assisted resolution.

In the first phase of the assisted resolution, a one-on-one talk between landowners would be facilitated by a mediator. If that failed, a committee made up of people with diverse backgrounds would attempt to find a solution. Any agreement would be written and include goals for compliance as well as monitoring to ensure the goals are met.

If that solution failed to work, as a final step a statewide committee made up of landowners, hunters, outfitters and a member of the FWP Commission and the Board of Livestock would take action. This final phase would require the complaining landowner to appeal and the committee must find, by a majority vote, that further action is warranted.

At any of the points in the process, FWP cannot, and would not, force public hunting on private land.

The program would sunset in four years unless support for the program warranted that it continue.


Public can help

One hitch I see is that any solution would require cooperation from landowners harboring wildlife. In some cases, those people may not see the animals as a problem. In the instance of lands that are leased or outfitted, such concentrations of wildlife are money in the bank. For landowners who don’t condone hunting, they see their property as a safe haven.

For attempting to address the difficult situation, the council should be commended. The solutions are not easy, and this may provide a mediation venue that would avoid a costly court case. The public can help by making recommendations on the draft proposal through Nov. 20.