New FWP Commissioners

[Deleted member 18333]

I don't know about you, but generally I do not associate politicians or politics with making existing governmental processes better, or more efficient. Ymmv.

I agree. I'm not suggesting an elected Commission would be better. Just making it clear that someone or some entity is going to need to make the decisions currently under the authority of the Commission if you want the Commission to go away. No guarantee that person or entity would do it any better. Personally, think @BuzzH idea of having some basic qualifications (education or work experience in wildlife management) to be a Commissioner is a good start.

 

[brocksw]

I agree. I'm not suggesting an elected Commission would be better. Just making it clear that someone or some entity is going to need to make the decisions currently under the authority of the Commission if you want the Commission to go away. No guarantee that person or entity would do it any better. Personally, think @BuzzH idea of having some basic qualifications (education or work experience in wildlife management) to be a Commissioner is a good start.

Maybe that is a good compromise with MT being where it is. But if we're being honest, I think that will likely be difficult to get into law as well. I'd rather devote that energy to a law that had a direct and positive impact to the resource. Another reason for me, as a regular citizen, to avoid a commission all together. Let's deal directly with the wildlife professionals.

 

[Big Fin]

The system prior to 1979 was that Commissioners were appointed based on (hopefully) qualification. The Commissioners then hired a Director who worked or the Commission, rather than the Director being a political appointee of the Gov. The Commission had a lot more power in licenses, fees, budgets, etc. And the Director was mostly insulated from the political process, thus insulating the Department from the political process.

Then, a Governor decided he and the Legislature knew more about wildlife management than the paid professionals. They passed the law and we ended up with the system we have today, where the Director is also a political appointment, making the Department and wildlife fair game for all the political games.

If only we could roll back the hands of time.

 

[brocksw]

I have to think that voters would chose the candidates that best fit there interests for wildlife when voting for commissioners.
Montanans have for the most part voted for democrats in the past for the office of superintendent of public instruction even when republicans won most of he other state wide offices, because for the most part they agree with the democrats when it comes to education. It is likely voters will do the same with wildlife.

People will vote for their interests. I think you are precisely right. I also think that quite often people's wildlife "interests" are counter to, or in direct violation of what the science supports as being best for the resource, now and into the future. My opinion.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I haven’t read through all the comments about having an elected commission, but would it be possible to prohibit party affiliation on the commission like it is with district judges?

IMO, uncoupling party affiliation and party line on issues not related to the issues a commissioner would be making decisions on could lead to qualified individuals being elected.

A commissioner is deciding wildlife management policy. His or her positions on other hot button social issues is irrelevant.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I haven’t read through all the comments about having an elected commission, but would it be possible to prohibit party affiliation on the commission like it is with district judges?

IMO, uncoupling party affiliation and party line on issues not related to the issues a commissioner would be making decisions on could lead to qualified individuals being elected.

A commissioner is deciding wildlife management policy. His or her positions on other hot button social issues is irrelevant.

After seeing the ads for the judicial races in Montana this year, it was crystal clear to me that there are no unaffiliated political candidates.

The amount of clearly partisan funding going into these campaigns is exactly what I think will happen in elected Commision races.

 

[Gerald Martin]

After seeing the ads for the judicial races in Montana this year, it was crystal clear to me that there are no unaffiliated political candidates.

The amount of clearly partisan funding going into these campaigns is exactly what I think will happen in elected Commision races.

You are probably right. It sucks to see our public trust resources used as chits in political gamesmanship.

 

[DFS]

Clearly what is currently happening isn’t working. If we are going to burn it down I will take my chance at voting for a commissioner versus watching the same thing not work over and over again until there is nothing left but private land hunting.

 

[SAJ-99]

These people are appointed with the expectation they will vote the way their boss wants them to vote. Welcome to politics 2023. We have the same but the opposite in WA. People aren’t basing any decision on the resource, only the political benefit to the party. What they don’t like is negative attention. In the end, these are part-time positions that don’t pay the bills. Commissioners only get worried when it affects their personal bottom line.

@BuzzH is right. As much as we like to think there is a middle, there isn’t. People vote on a few issues. As long as Montanas continue to get their “opportunity” they will place it lower on the list, and the resource will suffer.

 

[Hunting Wife]

You are probably right. It sucks to see our public trust resources used as chits in political gamesmanship.

Could very well be wrong. But I have little faith in the political machine these days. The entire thing hinges solely on who spends the most money, and who stands to make the most money. It’s disgusting.

 

[MT Super Puncher]

I haven’t read through all the comments about having an elected commission, but would it be possible to prohibit party affiliation on the commission like it is with district judges?

IMO, uncoupling party affiliation and party line on issues not related to the issues a commissioner would be making decisions on could lead to qualified individuals being elected.

A commissioner is deciding wildlife management policy. His or her positions on other hot button social issues is irrelevant.

Purported "nonpartisan" judicial races haven't let to qualified individuals in that sector, so I'm not sure it would be any different in this case. Not sure what the solution is here, but unfortunately everything is partisan, whether it's labeled or not.

 

[OntarioHunter]

How has that panned out for us? It becomes a politicized flip flop based on politicized agendas, IMO. Politics are pendulum swinging wankers who want to correct the f-ups of the "other side", again, IMO.

We do not allow our political biased Senate approve Governor appointed District Judges. They are voted by the people of that specific district. I prefer this much more-so than Governor/Senate. Seems Regional based commissioners would fulfill the same capacity.
View attachment 259129

In my experience when living in Montana for thirty-five years, elected judges were a disaster. What good lawyer is going to throw away his practice for a $44K/year job that only lasts four years? My ex wife's lawyer back in 1984 made $2M/year on workman's comp claims alone. The district judges we had back then were either drunks, junkies, stupid as a sack of hammers, or all of above. Losers. No one else would run for office. It was horrible. Of course, being a FWP commissioner might be different. Back in my day I recall car dealers and bar owners sometimes got picked. I doubt anyone has to give up their job unless maybe if they work for FWP in some other capacity. Perhaps the senate approves those appointments but I don't recall ever hearing of them rejecting anyone.

 

[sacountry]

Totally agree, elected commissions would likely be worse.

But what you explained in your post, is essentially already happening anyway...why some are willing/wanting to try electing the commission.

Better approach would be requiring education/experience in a natural resource field, etc. to even be considered for Commission appointments.

Why does every job on the planet require education and experience except for politicians and political appointments?

Wouldn't it be interesting to require 5 years of wildlife biology experience to be on the Commission? Whether it be elected or appointed!! Could you imagine a group of 7 MT biologists, retired or present, who get to tell the Director what to do

 

[Wind Gypsy]

So Susan Brooke lives on the border of glacier and the res, between region 1 and region 4, 25 miles as the crow flies from the nearest open hunting zone (outside of glacier or res), but she's the region 3 commissioner?

she lobbied the Montana Legislature for the Montana Stockgrowers and Woolgrowers

^This + GG appointment doesn't give the average DIY hunter the warm and fuzzies about where biases are likely to lay. Hopefully that feeling is misled like much of it was with Waller last year.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

One interim but important step for the commission would to require the commissioners to sign a damned conflict of interest policy with specific penalties for violations. Byorth is the only commissioner that I recall recusing himself from a vote.

When I was a federal scientist we had to sign such a policy, since a number of us did some side consulting. One of the three criteria promised action if we even created the appearance of a conflict of interest because of consequences to the lab’s integrity. Tabor was waaaaaaaay past that marker (past tense only because of his retirement).

 

[Gerald Martin]

One interim but important step for the commission would to require the commissioners to sign a damned conflict of interest policy with specific penalties for violations. Byorth is the only commissioner that I recall recusing himself from a vote.

When I was a federal scientist we had to sign such a policy, since a number of us did some side consulting. One of the three criteria promised action if we even created the appearance of a conflict of interest because of consequences to the lab’s integrity. Tabor was waaaaaaaay past that marker (past tense only because of his retirement).

Nah, Tabor was only looking out for the average resident hunter. Outfitter interests were never prioritized in his motions…

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I agree Ben.

But, how many times have I heard that the people who voted in the super majority say they don't agree with those they vote for on wildlife/habitat/hunting issues...they cast their votes on issues on they deem more important on things like border issues, taxes, abortion, gun rights, etc?

They tell me over and over again that those issues are just more important than wildlife, habitat, hunting, fishing etc. So, they vote against themselves in regard to that, including conceding the FWP commission to those they vote for.

Is it not conceivable that they COULD vote in a commission or commissioner that aligns closer to their beliefs on proper wildlife management since they could ignore those other issues?

Its pretty obvious that expecting a Governor, and those you vote for, to act responsibly in regard to political appointments to the commission simply isn't working these days. Its a rare bird that a single member of a commission even has a degree in a natural resources field, let alone wildlife biology.

Its to the point of being ridiculous and trying something else keeps looking better all the time.

I think you are really onto something with this. Case in point is CPW as Supreme Leader/Chairman Polis stacks the commission with social scientists and professional activists. It seems the fringes of both parties receive concessions through commission appointments while an election might bring things back toward the center. Might motivate hunters to get to the polls or prioritize wildlife, hunting, habitat over other issues. Definitely worth thinking about….

 

[BuzzH]

I think you are really onto something with this. Case in point is CPW as Supreme Leader/Chairman Polis stacks the commission with social scientists and professional activists. It seems the fringes of both parties receive concessions through commission appointments while an election might bring things back toward the center. Might motivate hunters to get to the polls or prioritize wildlife, hunting, habitat over other issues. Definitely worth thinking about….

I don't disagree...but until there are minimum qualifications for commissioners it won't change.

 

[bigsky2]

The language is out on Molnar's bill that would make the commission an elected position.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/LC0020.pdf