Sportsmen, commissioners criticize FWP’s elk season-setting
Laura Lundquist
(Missoula Current) Less than a week before the Dec. 4 Fish and Wildlife commission meeting, FWP announced that commissioners had proposed several amendments to the department's season-setting recommendations.
Some sportsmen complained about the short notice, especially when a lot of hunters were still out hunting until Nov. 30 and public comment closed the next day, leaving little time for hunters to learn about the amendments and offer comments.
“There are some major changes proposed, and the public is generally not aware of these. Public input is being shorted,” said Jim Vashro, Montana Wildlife Federation board member and former FWP Region 1 fisheries manager, in early December.
The department or the commission must have heard the complaints, because during the Dec. 4 meeting, Big Game Chief Brian Wakeling made a point of explaining how FWP conducts the season-setting process.
In the three months following the general hunting season, FWP develops possibilities for the next year. Then in March and April, they choose ideas to carry forward to the June-July scoping meetings with sportsmen, where they “get feedback in an informal setting,” Wakeling said. Based on that, FWP releases its recommendations in October, which go out for a round of regional public meetings. Then the recommendations and public comments are provided to the commission.
“It’s a lengthy process,” Wakeling told the commissioners. “We’re always open to ideas.”
Commission Chair Leslie Robinson and Region 1 Commissioner Ian Wargo both asked if comments made during the scoping meetings could be made part of the formal record to improve transparency. They also said the timing puts commissioners at a disadvantage. Commissioners can’t submit amendments until they know what the recommendations are but they don’t get the recommendations until a few weeks before the December season-setting meeting.
It turns out that Wargo tried to propose one of his amendments months before the department released its recommendations. The amendment would limit hunters on public land to one elk per year and hunters with elk B licenses would be restricted mostly to private land. Even so, FWP didn’t make the final version of the amendment public until Nov. 26.
A discussion thread on the online forum HuntTalk extended to 12 pages of opinions on Wargo’s amendment, the season-setting process and the various aspects of elk management on public and private land - a microcosm of the debate that swirls around elk proposals every year.
“Commissioner Wargo has proposed an amendment to move the cow elk hunting pressure in some units to private land, which is where the complaints of too many elk persist. I asked him what the Department's response was to his proposal, knowing the Commissioners always seek FWP input on proposals to make sure they are biologically sound and not against some FWP policy. From what I gather, the Department has not responded to his amendment,” commenter “Big Fin” wrote in a Nov. 25 post.
Big Fin added that he was worried that FWP might be slow-rolling the amendment and wouldn’t complete its analysis in time for the amendment to be considered. Wargo said he also had his doubts.
“I was frustrated with the department. I tried to engage the department early, tried to get things out there in front of people, so it wasn’t last-minute. And it gets put back on me that I’m trying to sneak something in there last-minute,” Wargo told the Current. “I sent an email on Sept. 2 and I turned that amendment into an official idea on Oct. 22, before we even knew what the department’s recommendations were.”
Wargo’s amendment didn’t pass, so during the meeting, he proposed a similar amendment limited to Region 1 where all elk B licenses would be valid only on private land and bowhunters could hunt only bulls. It passed.
Wargo said he had a change of heart after that. Commissioners aren’t allowed to talk directly to biologists about their ideas before the commission meeting. But he had a few conversations with the department after the meeting.
“Having gone through the process, and having had constructive conversations with the department after the fact - kind of a debrief - in their defense, what I was trying to accomplish is no small task,” Wargo said. “In judging some of the reactions that my amendments elicited (from the public), I can see where the department would sit back and say, ‘We’re not going to propose anything monumental, because we get scorched by everybody.’ Everybody thinks they’re the experts. So there’s no motivation for the department to stick their neck out there.”
This was Wargo’s first year as a commissioner, and he said it’s been eye-opening. He’d participated as a hunter in plenty of commission meetings over the years and thought he knew what to expect as a commissioner. He was hoping to make some big changes. But this past year has revealed many aspects of wildlife management that he’d been unaware of.
“I’ve operated in an echo chamber most of my life and talked to like-minded folks: ‘It’s simple: Just go this way and it would all be better.’ Well, it would be better for me, but I’m not taking into consideration this other person who has a vested interest. So that’s been an eye-opener for me. I don’t get to just swoop in and be the hero. I was naïve in thinking, ‘Oh, someone just needs to come in with a better idea,’” Wargo said.
When it comes to season setting, some sportsmen say Montana should follow the lead of other states and move the process to earlier in the year, with more scoping and notification when commissioners submit amendments. We might even follow Colorado’s lead: Instead of having season setting at the end of every general season, Colorado’s commission votes on regulations every five years and then meets annually just to change quotas.
“Wyoming doesn’t have these kinds of problems. It has tons of elk, but they don’t have the problems like we do. They have a better process, the biologists have more say and they do this way farther in advance,” one hunter said.
Wargo said hunters have contributed to the situation where December works best for season setting in Montana.
“In the department’s defense, sportsmen have requested that draws are conducted earlier and earlier so they can plan. But we just cut off our nose to spite our face. People know that they have a bull tag in Montana and can give their company nine months’ notice that they’ll be taking the month off. Great. But, now it’s inflexible and we’re not able to respond to a hard winter or whatnot. We do our draw before we know how many deer and elk died from the winter,” Wargo said. “If you do (season setting) too far ahead, the weather or things might change, then they could set quotas that cause problems. So they’ve pushed it as close to the time as they can so they can get the regulation booklet out on time.”
While he might not be able to adjust the timing of the season-setting, Wargo said he’d like to add a new procedure for the commission that runs parallel to the department’s process where the commission can suggest its own ideas and have its own scoping meetings. That would aid transparency but wouldn’t necessarily be easier for the commission.
“The absolute best case scenario for me as a commissioner is to leave a meeting, and if everyone is pissed off at me at the end of the meeting, that’s as good as I can do. That’s a tough realization,” Wargo said. “A healthy amount of grace is probably warranted by all sides. It’s a lot more difficult than I ever thought it would be. But I think it’s worth it. It’s why people live here. They want to see abundant wildlife.”
Contact reporter Laura Lundquist at lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.