MBA / PLPW Issues

E-mail from Rick to Gary and Steve

November, 2007

This is pretty good information for a guy sitting on the PLPW Council. The problem is obvious and nothing I've read to date explains it better than Steve's recent article in the newsletter. In fact, I have a proposal for you and Gary about that very subject.

As you are aware, the Council had its first meeting back in early September. Even though it was right in the middle of my elk hunting, I did attend and I did pay attention to the posturing of the various groups at the meeting. The landowner reps were actually pretty neutral on most areas of interest (not a surprise). The sportsmen were fairly vocal, but not in a focused manner. And the outfitters brought their big gun with them to help dilute any focus on the real issue - with that gun being a Mrs. Jean Johnson (sp). If you haven't had a chance to hear Jean speak, you are definitely missing a performance. When you talk about spin doctors, this lady could be the representing surgeon general. She's a gray haired, late 60's or early 70's lady that looks just like grandma. She begins her speech praising all that is good in the outfitting world and how those unlimited licenses are what are keeping Montana the last great place. She concludes with tears in her eyes about how she dreams and prays that her grandchildren will be able to enjoy the same outdoor opportunities we have today. Hell, when she was done, I wanted to join MOGA. This lady is GOOD! But when the smoke cleared, and the eyes dried, it was clear that we were treated to a great performance, but it was laced with half truths and misfocusing fog. I was impressed but also setback at the challenge I obviously had ahead of me.

The department had evidently decided that previous councils had also got lost in the outfitter fog and had decided to introduce a facilitator to the process. This very talented guide lead us back and forth through how things used to be, how they are now, and how we each hope they will be in the future. After creating a positive futuristic vision out of all of that, he had us establish a list of barriers that could alter the chances of that vision becoming a reality. Everyone had a chance to voice their thoughts, and in the end I was bit surprised how minor private land access was in the overall concern. No kidding? Here is the list of obstacles or barriers that were identified (as you read them, keep in mind that the purpose of the Council is to figure out ways to better manage public wildlife on private lands). I have them listed in random order.

1. Land developers - (#5)
2. Dysfunctional financial incentives
3. Inability to regulate ethics - (#2)
4. Polarizing single-issue groups
5. Distrust among affected interests
6. Changing demographics
7. Computerization / TV culture
8. "Sacred" private property rights exercised at neighboring landowners
   expense
9. Lack of understanding issues and/or facts - (#6)
10. Market-based hunting models or programs (may require Council to be
    proactive) - (#1)
11. The press and/or the media - (#4)
12. Overstretched revenue source (nonresident hunters) - explore
    alternatives
13. Legislature (example - blocking resident license fee increases - or
    block management funding increases) - (#9)
14. Increased housing in rural areas, causing hunting safety issues - (#7)
15. Inadequate recognition for landowners contributions to wildlife
    conservation - (#8)
16. Outdoor society changing to a sidewalk society - people are not
    comfortable outdoors
17. Lack of communication from user groups outside of the Council
18. Lack of outreach from PL/PW Council about proposed recommendations
19. Lack of FWP enforcement resources during hunting season - (#3)

I'm sure you will agree that all of the items are a concern and most are probably something all sportsmen groups should be thinking about. The question is, which ones are affecting managing public wildlife on private lands? I've highlighted what I think they are and rated them numerically at the end.

Each of these identified concerns has a proposed study group assignment. How individuals will be selected to each has yet to be determined. You can bet I'll be waving my hand in the air to be a member of the unlimited, market based license group.

With unlimited market based licenses being what I would consider the #1 concern, I would like to use Steve's letter to format an issues list that the study group could use as a guide. I've been told that any available data would be at our disposal, so we should have a rare chance to show factual trends, since the double edge sword of HB195 was unsheathed. Once those data supported trends are completed, they would become a base to support corrective recommendations. With the Council operating by consensus rule, having the facts should help keep opinions minimized and give solutions a fighting chance. Or at least that will be my hope.

I would need another 15 Newsletters ASAP if we wanted to use it to reference Steve's letter. I think reading the article in the Newsletter gives the issue a feel of belonging to a sportsmen group rather than just one man's opinion (even though there is a clear disclaimer preceding the article). We might even ask some of the other groups (Wildlife Federation, etc.) about supporting the views in the letter, adding even more credibility to the issue?

Rick
406-263-7216 (cell)