Anti-access by air/water bill

[Big Fin]

Wondering what you guys think of this bill that is being heard on Thursday. HB 588. Link provided below.

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0588.htm

A couple sections stand out as rather peculiar for a bill that is sponsored by an outfitter who stands to benefit from people using boats and aircraft to access landlocked hunting grounds. Once again, I will tagged as being anti-outfitter for fighting to preserve public access for those using boats and aircraft.

Hopefully someone can tell me why we have to restrict these two means of public access to these public lands only for hunters and hunting access, when all other activities are just fine.

Section 1 - Unlawful use of aircraft ......

(2) Unless permitted by the department, a person may not use an aircraft, including a helicopter, for hunting purposes within the boundaries of a national forest except when cargo or persons are loaded and unloaded at federal aviation agency approved airports, aircraft landing fields, or heliports that have been established on private property or that have been established by any federal, state, county, or municipal governmental body. Hunting purposes include the transportation of hunters or wildlife and hunting equipment and supplies.

Not sure I have seen too many FAA approved airports, landing fields, or heliports in most the National Forests of Montana. A few airstrips in the Bob Marshall, but that is about it.

Wonder how long it will be before this bill gets amended to include BLM, State Lands, USFWS lands, beyond just the Forest Service lands mentioned here in.


Another interesting section.

Section 2 - Unlawful use of boats.......

1) A person may not use a powerboat, sailboat, or any boat under sail or any floating device towed by a powerboat, sailboat, or any boat under sail for the purpose of killing, capturing, taking, pursuing, concentrating, driving, or stirring up any upland game bird, game animal, or fur-bearing animal.

Wonder how one defines "killing, capturing, taking, pursuing .......?"

Another attack on access. Evidently you can use aircraft and boats if you are fishing, skiing, mushroom picking, shed antler hunting, rolling in the hay, or whatever else, so long as you are not hunting.

Go figure.

I think I will be there for this one.

 

[dustinf]

Wonder how one defines "killing, capturing, taking, pursuing .......?"

Typical.

Used 7 words, just to avoid using the word "hunting."

 

[mdunc8]

I actually don't have a problem with Section 1. As far as I know, it doesn't change how we can currently access national forest in Montana. It's already illegal to land a helicopter or plane on national forest -- regardless of the reason (e.g., fishing, skiing, etc.). However, I am concerned that they will eventually go after BLM and state lands too.

Section 2 is terrible though.

 

[schmalts]

Big ranchers having their way again I see. I wish there was a way to just say to them "no more cattle grazing leases on publicl land that is land locked without public access"

 

[mdunc8]

Actually, the way I read Section 2, I'm not sure it limits access or one's ability to hunt from areas accessed with watercraft. It seems to me that it's limiting one's ability to shoot or chase animals from a boat. I may be wrong though.

 

[Big Fin]

I actually don't have a problem with Section 1. As far as I know, it doesn't change how we can currently access national forest in Montana. It's already illegal to land a helicopter or plane on national forest -- regardless of the reason (e.g., fishing, skiing, etc.)......

You sure of that? I am trying to find the answer, but the information is hard to obtain.

I have been told that their are many landing strips on Forest Service that are not "FAA approved" as would be the requirement under this bill. I am not personally sure of that, but some pilots have told me that a Forest Service landing strip, say in the Bob Marshall, is not necessarily FAA approved.

I am researching to find out, before I go to Helena on Thursday.

 

[MTbowhunter84]

I'm guessing he wasn't a sponsor for hb235

 

[TBass]

Here's the current statute. I haven't read through HB 588 yet. Is it vastly different than what's already in law? At first glance it appears the bill creates two sections, one for aircraft and one for boats whereas the current statute covers them in one section. Some of the concerns brought up are already law.

87-6-207. Unlawful use of aircraft or boat. (1) Except as provided in 87-3-126, a person may not:
(a) kill, take, or shoot at any game bird, game animal, or fur-bearing animal from an aircraft, including a helicopter;
(b) use an aircraft or helicopter for the purpose of concentrating, pursuing, driving, rallying, or stirring up any game bird, migratory bird, game animal, or fur-bearing animal; or
(c) if in an aircraft, including a helicopter, spot or locate any game animal or fur-bearing animal and communicate the location of the game animal or fur-bearing animal to any person on the ground by means of any air-to-ground communication signal or other device as an aid to hunting or pursuing wildlife.
(2) Unless permitted by the department, a person may not use an aircraft, including a helicopter, for hunting purposes within the boundaries of a national forest except when persons or cargo are loaded and unloaded at federal aviation agency approved airports, aircraft landing fields, or heliports that have been established on private property or that have been established by any federal, state, county, or municipal governmental body. Hunting purposes include the transportation of hunters or wildlife and hunting equipment and supplies. The provisions of this subsection do not apply:
(a) during emergency situations;
(b) when search and rescue operations are being conducted; or
(c) for predator control as permitted by the department of livestock.
(3) A person may not use a powerboat, sailboat, or any boat under sail or any floating device towed by a powerboat, sailboat, or any boat under sail for the purpose of killing, capturing, taking, pursuing, concentrating, driving, or stirring up any upland game bird, game animal, or fur-bearing animal.
(4) The following penalties apply for a violation of this section:
(a) Unless otherwise provided in this subsection (4), a person convicted of a violation of this section shall be fined not less than $50 or more than $1,000 or be imprisoned in the county detention center for not more than 6 months, or both. In addition, the person, upon conviction or forfeiture of bond or bail, may be subject to forfeiture of any current hunting, fishing, or trapping license issued by this state and the privilege to hunt, fish, or trap in this state or to use state lands, as defined in 77-1-101, for recreational purposes for a period of time set by the court.
(b) If a person is convicted or forfeits bond or bail after being charged with unlawful use of aircraft or boat to kill or take a mountain sheep, moose, wild buffalo, caribou, mountain goat, black bear, or grizzly bear, the person shall be fined not less than $500 or more than $2,000 or be imprisoned in the county detention center for not more than 6 months, or both. In addition, the person shall forfeit any current hunting, fishing, recreational use, or trapping license issued by this state and the privilege to hunt, fish, or trap in this state for 30 months from the date of conviction or forfeiture unless the court imposes a longer period.
(c) If a person is convicted or forfeits bond or bail after being charged with unlawful use of aircraft or boat to kill or take a deer, antelope, elk, or mountain lion, the person shall be fined not less than $300 or more than $1,000 or be imprisoned in the county detention center for not more than 6 months, or both. In addition, the person shall forfeit any current hunting, fishing, recreational use, or trapping license issued by this state and the privilege to hunt, fish, or trap in this state for 24 months from the date of conviction or forfeiture unless the court imposes a longer period.
(d) If a person is convicted or forfeits bond or bail after being charged with unlawful use of aircraft or boat to kill or take a fur-bearing animal, the person shall be fined not less than $100 or more than $1,000 or be imprisoned in the county detention center for not more than 6 months, or both. In addition, the person shall forfeit any current hunting, fishing, recreational use, or trapping license issued by this state and the privilege to hunt, fish, or trap in this state for 24 months from the date of conviction or forfeiture unless the court imposes a longer period, and any pelts possessed unlawfully must be confiscated.

 

[mdunc8]

Take a look at 7-4-6 at the following website http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0704.html for FAA regulations. While I haven't found anything specifically addressing the issue on local Forest Service websites I did find this.....Service regulations designate "[a]ll uses of National Forest System lands" as "special uses," with the exception of those uses provided for in the regulations governing the disposal of timber and minerals and the grazing of livestock. 36 C.F.R. s 251.50(a) (1998). Under the regulations, "efore engaging in a special use, persons or entities must ... obtain a special use authorization from the authorized officer unless that requirement is waived by paragraph (c) of this section." Id. The regulations exempt from this permit requirement "non-commercial recreational activities such as camping, picnick-ing, hiking, fishing, hunting, horseback riding, and boating." 36 C.F.R. s 251.50(c). A U.S. Court of Appeals sided (Everett v. United States of America) with the Forest Service's stance that landing an aircraft of NFS lands wasn't an exempt activity and thus requires private citizens to obtain a special use permit to land aircraft on NFS lands.

 

[sweetnectar]

Except as provided in 87-3-126, a person may not:

(a) kill, take, or shoot at any game bird, game animal, or fur-bearing animal from an aircraft, including a helicopter

Does this mean you wouldn't be able to shoot a wolf from aircraft unless the legislature changed it? Perhaps this is already the case or is it the commission? anyone know?

 

[wingman1]

It is unlawful right now to land on unapproved/off airport airstrips within national forest. Hunting or not.

 

[Big Fin]

Here's the current statute. I haven't read through HB 588 yet. Is it vastly different than what's already in law? At first glance it appears the bill creates two sections, one for aircraft and one for boats whereas the current statute covers them in one section. Some of the concerns brought up are already law.

Tbass - Thanks for showing that. I read the proposed bill where it said "New section" and did not go and compare it to existing legislation, thinking it was adding those provisions. I will compare the two and see what changes are actually being made.

Requires further investigation as to why this bill is necessary.

 

[Straight Arrow]

It is unlawful right now to land on unapproved/off airport airstrips within national forest.

.... unless obtaining a permit to do so.

This bill appears to be another proposal to solve a problem that does not exist.

..... OR to prevent someone from accessing landlocked public land to recreate (hunt) as observed on a DIY hunting show not long ago. (wink,wink)

Either case leads to the clear conclusion that this is an anti-access-to-public-land bill.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Does this mean you wouldn't be able to shoot a wolf from aircraft unless the legislature changed it? Perhaps this is already the case or is it the commission? anyone know?

As was pointed out in a previous post, this bill creates two sections, one for water, one for air. They largely took the existing statute which has both air and water and separates it into two sections. It is now illegal to take a wolf from the air unless permitted by the agency. That does not change in this bill unless i am grossly misreading it.

The bill seems to be more about disallowing helicopter hunts like Randy did. Section 1, subsection 2 is new language:

(2) Unless permitted by the department, a person may not use an aircraft, including a helicopter, for hunting purposes within the boundaries of a national forest except when cargo or persons are loaded and unloaded at federal aviation agency approved airports, aircraft landing fields, or heliports that have been established on private property or that have been established by any federal, state, county, or municipal governmental body. Hunting purposes include the transportation of hunters or wildlife and hunting equipment and supplies. The provisions of this subsection do not apply:
(a) during emergency situations;
(b) when search and rescue operations are being conducted; or
(c) for predator control as permitted by the department of livestock.

As was pointed out earlier. This would disallow the use of airstrips that are not FAA approved. I'm not sure how many FAA approved airstrips their are in MT, but it can't be many. I think Fin's right: this is an attempt to find a solution to a nonexistent problem.

 

[WyOpitz]

I wonder if this will also include my personal hunting/scouting drone?

 

[wingman1]

You should note it says national forest. BLM is not NF.

 

[RobG]

The bill seems to be more about disallowing helicopter hunts like Randy did. Section 1, subsection 2 is new language:



As was pointed out earlier. This would disallow the use of airstrips that are not FAA approved. I'm not sure how many FAA approved airstrips their are in MT, but it can't be many. I think Fin's right: this is an attempt to find a solution to a nonexistent problem.

Ben - that is what I originally thought when I brought the subject up a couple weeks ago, but upon looking into this I'm starting to think it is a non-issue. As Mdunc has stated, it doesn't change where you can land (and it isn't just FAA airports BTW - basically you can land anywhere intended to be used by aircraft, but not roads, lakes, riverbanks, etc).

Ran it by my dad (MT pilot for 67 years) and nothing major jumped out at him.

One clear change is the amount of the fines (reasonable increases).

Another change that I'm not sure what to make of, the inclusion of 1.c(ii) which specifies a period of one day for communicating game animal location after being spotted in an aircraft (Similar FWP regs already in place). As I read the current law it seems to imply that that you can NEVER scout from an aircraft since there is not a 1 day (or any number of day) time period before you have to wait before using that information.

If I see a weakness it might be that the proposed language doesn't exclude the pilot from finding the animals and hunting them the same day.

Don't take my word for it (I'm just an engineer that skis and hunts too much) but I'm not sure this is a bill that should be opposed. It seems just to increase the fines and clarify how you can use aircraft to locate animals. Maybe it even should be strengthened to clarify that the pilot can't hunt the same day either.

 

[schmalts]

I find it interesting that they can even make this law pertaining to Federal land at a state level. I was always told no state law can trump a federal law made by the FAA. An example is I know a guy with a float plane that landed on a lake in southern Wisconsin. A local cop wrote him a ticket saying a local law banned float planes from landing on that lake. He took it to court and it was tossed out because the FAA states that a pilot can land a plane anyplace he deems safe under the laws that the FAA made pertaining to distances both vertical and horizontal to dwellings.

 

[sweetnectar]

Oh thanks schmalts, now the wheels in my head are turning.

 

[schmalts]

Oh thanks schmalts, now the wheels in my head are turning.

do tell??