The Tentative Process

The annual Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Tentative Process is the mechanism used by the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission to adopt fish, upland game bird, and big game regulations; establish or amend hunting season dates, license and permit quotas; and a host of proposals affecting wildlife management. This process is formal, open to the public, and somewhat complicated to the unacquainted. Specific procedures must be followed by the MBA in introducing or fighting proposals that affect bowhunting and game management in Montana. It is therefore instructive to examine it in some detail as it relates specifically to big game.

The MDFWP Commission is composed of five members that are appointed by the governor from five geographical districts. Members serve staggered four-year terms, with three members appointed at the beginning of the Governor's term and two appointed two years after the Governor's term begins. At least one member must be experienced in the breeding and management of domestic livestock. The Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman are also appointed by the Governor. The Commission is empowered by the legislature to make decisions affecting the policies of the Department as it relates to seasons' structures and dates; license and permit limits and availability; fishing, hunting and wildlife issues; state parks; property and conservation easement acquisitions; and special regulations for youth and the physically disabled.

The Department is an executive branch agency under the Governor. It administers the day-to-day activities of FWP with specific statutory duties including the administration of the Tentative Process. While the Tentative Process continues in some capacity year-long, that segment that is generally of most interest to us as Bowhunters occurs during the period of December thru February, when the tentative proposals affecting big game are presented to the Commission, publically debated and then adopted or rejected.

To gain a personal understanding of this process, we will now examine the process step-by-step, as it progresses throughout the year within the FWP structure. Later we will focus on how this process relates to the MBA.

For the purposes' of management, the Department reviews population objectives throughout the year.

September & November The Department reviews hunting seasons, and information supplied from hunter and landowner contacts. Each Region will develop tentative proposals and tentative hunting season recommendations and submit these to Helena.

Early November The Department will perform an internal review of the recommendations submitted by the Regions.

Mid November Regional and Helena staff meets to develop tentative Department recommendations. The Director approves tentative department recommendations before they are sent to the Commission.

Late November The Department tentative proposals and tentative season recommendations are submitted to the FWP Commission.

Mid December FWP Commission meets to adopt tentative proposals, and tentative hunting seasons. The Commission accepts public comment before it votes on each tentative item.

January Local and Regional hearings are held to discuss the items on the tentative agenda. FWP officials present the tentative issues and record public comment. Note: The Helena meeting, where all the Commissioners were on hand to receive public comment has been abolished. The Regional meetings now serves this purpose.

Late January Regional and Helena staff meets to develop final season recommendations. Some tentative proposals may be altered or modified due to public comment or other circumstances before the final action by the Commission. Again, the Directors' approval is required before these can be submitted to the Commission.

Early February FWP Commission meets to discuss the public input and to vote on each individual tentative proposal, and tentative hunting season. At times, they will place a block of several hunting districts within a Region together in order to save time before casting their vote. Generally, no public input is allowed at this session although the Commission will on occasion, ask a member of the audience a question in order to receive some verification or clarification of a particular issue. Those tentative proposals that are adopted at this meeting become official.

Late March to Early April Each Region will develop tentative proposals for moose, sheep, goat and lion quotas.

Mid April to May The FWP Commission meets to adopt the tentative proposals for moose, sheep, goat and lion quotas. The Commission accepts public comments.

Late April Each Region will develop tentative deer, elk, & antelope permit/license quotas and submit these to Helena.

Late May Regional and Helena staff meets to develop final Department moose, sheep, goat & lion quotas and tentative deer, elk & antelope permit/license quota recommendations. The Director approves the final Department MSG&L quotas before these are submitted to the Commission.

Early June The FWP Commission meets to adopt the final moose, sheep goat & lion quotas and adopt the tentative deer, elk & antelope quota recommendations of the Department. The Commission accepts public comments during this meeting.

Late July Regional and Helena staff meets to develop the final deer, elk & antelope quotas. Some DE&A tentative proposals may be altered or modified due to public comment or circumstance before the Department submits their recommendations to the Commission for final action. The director approves the final Department deer, elk, & antelope quota recommendations.

Early August The FWP Commission meets to adopt the final deer, elk & antelope quotas. If you have managed to reach this point of the discussion without being totally confused, congratulations are in order. You are obviously someone who cares a great deal about the process, the welfare of our wildlife and resources, and the future of our bowhunting opportunities.

Of interest to the MBA as an organization, is the method and timing by which these proposals are introduced for consideration during the December Commission meeting. By far, the vast majority of proposals concern routine season limits, etc. and originate within the MDFWP, itself. Some proposals might originate at the suggestion of individuals or groups (such as the MBA). These proposals are generally reviewed and modified by the department prior to the December meeting with the end proposal representing a collaborative effort acceptable to both parties. The Commission members themselves often introduce proposals as well. In some cases, these sorts of proposals are public knowledge prior to the December meeting and the MBA can go prepared to comment on those that affect bowhunting. Other proposals can come as a complete surprise. In rare cases, individuals or groups may attempt to introduce new proposals at the December meeting. The chances of getting these proposals advanced to the formal public hearing process without the endorsement of the Department are quite remote.

The most common route for those individuals or groups (MBA) wishing to advance proposals for the tentative process is to approach the MDFWP to endorse a proposal on their behalf, such as was done with the recent MBA equipment proposal. In this case, most of the research and compilation of data must be accomplished during the preceding summer. The Department must then be approached at the Regional level and presented the draft proposal by early fall. This proposal is then forwarded to all the different Region offices for examination by the Regional supervisors, biologists, warden captains, etc, and comments returned to Helena. The Department may then decide to present the proposal to the Commission as written or amend it according to the Department concerns received. Often, different parties directly affected by the proposal are brought in to discuss and reach consensus on contentious portions of a proposal. As an example, during the introduction of the MBA equipment proposal, a working group comprised of representatives from the MBA, the Department (administrators, biologists and enforcement), and field archery associations met on several occasions to discuss and possibly amend the proposal. If an agreeable proposal can be drafted, the MDFWP may then at its discretion present it to the Commission for consideration as a tentative issue at the December meeting. This proposal may then be discussed by the Commission and forwarded as is to the public hearing stage, amended, altered or discarded altogether.

The difficulty from the perspective of the MBA, however, arises when the Commission presents and adopts unannounced personal proposals during the December tentative setting meeting. With no forewarning, the MBA can do little to prevent or amend such proposals that have adverse effects upon bowhunting and must resort to defensive measures during the public-hearing stages in January and February. Reacting in cases such as these is hazardous, in that decisions must be made on short notice, defensive strategy must be plotted and the membership must be informed and mobilized in short order. When assuming a defensive posture, the risks are great and the best that can be hoped for is maintenance of the status quo. In contrast, a proactive stance often presents the chance to improve bowhunting opportunity. While the energy demands involved in the time-consuming process of crafting a proposal are much greater, the risks are minimal and the rewards potentially enhanced.

In summary, the Tentative Process applies to a variety of proposals including regulations, season dates and license/permit quotas for big game. The Department submits its recommendations to the Commission based on Department review, population and management objectives and public input. It is the Commission that makes the final determination on these. The Commission reserves the authority to amend the regulations, seasons, and limits as it deems necessary for wildlife management purposes.