FWP denies biologists’ request for competitive pay raise
Laura Lundquist
(Missoula Current) Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks has denied its biologists’ request for a pay raise, which would have put them on par with other biologists around the Northern Rocky Mountain region.
In May, FWP director Dustin Temple rejected a request from the Montana Association of Fish and Wildlife Biologists to include a modest pay raise for biologists in the next biennial budget. The Montana Association of Fish and Wildlife Biologists is the union that represents about 90 full-time wildlife and fisheries biologists in the department.
During a collaborative Executive Planning Process, with the help of the Montana Federation of Public Employees, the biologists had drafted a budget proposal that would have increased their pay by 2.7% in 2026 and 3% in 2027. Currently, FWP biologists annually earn about $10,000 less than the average wage of biologists working for other state agencies or for the states of Idaho or Wyoming, according to the Montana Federation of Public Employees.
In his May 3 letter to the union and the Montana Federation of Public Employees, Temple rejected the biologists’ request for a raise for three reasons, according to the Montana Federation of Public Employees: The modeling used to come up with the wage increases wasn’t authorized under Montana’s Broadband Pay Policy; all employees, not just biologists, had to deal with Montana’s skyrocketing cost of living; and biologists hadn’t shown how raises would improve satisfaction and retention.
“The team negotiating on the agency’s behalf is open to further discussion on this issue and would be happy to meet with you,” Temple wrote.
The Montana Federation of Public Employees disputes all three claims. FWP did not respond to the Missoula Current’s requests for comment.
The Broadband Pay Policy requires the state to look at the labor market to determine competitive pay and pay increases need to keep pace with the market. Then it requires pay equity for occupations within an agency.
The Montana Federation of Public Employees said nothing within the Broadband Pay Policy prohibits the proposed pay increases. If anything, biologists’ pay has not kept pace with the market nor have they kept pace with inflation and Montana’s skyrocketing cost of living.
Second, while the department gave about 250 non-biologist employees raises of more than 10% in 2022 and 2023, biologists, game wardens and some middle-management staff were not included. FWP leaders told biologists they weren’t included because they’d get their raises during collective bargaining, although that didn’t happen. Meanwhile, upper management received considerable increases of more than $10 to $14 an hour.
Finally, morale within the department is low and cultural surveys have noted that distrust in leadership is across the board, affecting all employees. The Montana Federation of Public Employees said the biologists’ proposal would rectify the resulting retention and recruitment challenge, especially since FWP biologists are required to have earned a master's degree, unlike other state agency biologists.
Biologists work long hours and are usually responsible for managing several wildlife or fish populations that cover vast areas. But, close to 75% of the biologists the union surveyed said they need a second job to survive as a wildlife biologist.
The Montana Federation of Public Employees argues that the FWP leadership should allow the proposal to go to the Legislature instead of squelching the proposal before it gets there.
“It’s hard to keep track of the dysfunction coming from FWP’s leadership,” said MFPE president Amanda Curtis. “The story here is that the department’s bargaining team told biologists that while they couldn’t do more this biennium, we could all work together to present a solution to the 2025 Legislature. Now it’s looking like they pulled a bait-and-switch, and we hope leadership comes up with a suitable budget request before it’s too late.”
Curtis was referring to last year’s contract negotiations, when the department refused to offer competitive wages to biologists, saying the raise that all state employees got from House Bill 13 was all that was allowed. One member of the management’s negotiating team reportedly told biologists they should hunt and fish more to offset their financial needs.
The biologists’ union has to negotiate its contract every two years, and past administrations have usually included money for biologists’ raises in its budget proposal.
The biologists’ union first voted down the department’s offered contract and considered taking action, such as going on strike. But ultimately, the membership voted 37-24 in December to ratify a contract that included only the wage increase authorized under House Bill 13 because department leadership agreed to use the Executive Planning Process to negotiate a raise for the next biennium.
Biologists said some union members wanted to take the high road in the hope that they could work something out. But Temple’s decision aborted the resulting proposal.