sacountry
Well-known member
It's so innocuous looking that it would probably pass on a ballet. Need to stop it before it gets to that point.
HB 372 Right to Hunt, Fish and Trap
- Thread starter MTelkHuntress
- Start date
Apparently you've met the average voter.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Interestingly, the Montana Stockgrowers Association spoke in opposition to this yesterday. Probably for different reasons than I am concerned.
I've pm'd some of the bill's proponents, and there seems to be a lot of unanswered questions that make me lean toward thinking this is a bigger risk than reward.
For example, no one can tell me exactly what "current means and methods" defines. In Montana? Elsewhere? Legal? Times of year and length of opportunity? The bill doesn't say but one can look up the dictionary definition of means and methods. How much would this limit MT FWP and others' ability to make big changes where it is deemed necessary? Some of the proponents seem to think this will essentially preserve our current opportunity in the state based on a contemporary snapshot of that opportunity. It's not clear to me that it does, and it is not clear to me that that is what hunting/fishing/trapping will need to be in our rapidly changing chunk of the republic as time progresses.
There's also an aspect of if it ain't broke don't fix it. Our current constitutional language of "The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights" seems far more solid, and clear, than what they are proposing replace it with. When I hear that other states have this language, I have to ask what the hunting and public trust of wildlife is like in those states, and would our current or future judiciary see it the same.
I'm open to being influenced otherwise, and actually would like to be, but I increasingly get the sense that the bill's proponents are checkers players stumping for something that lawyers will later play chess with.
I've pm'd some of the bill's proponents, and there seems to be a lot of unanswered questions that make me lean toward thinking this is a bigger risk than reward.
For example, no one can tell me exactly what "current means and methods" defines. In Montana? Elsewhere? Legal? Times of year and length of opportunity? The bill doesn't say but one can look up the dictionary definition of means and methods. How much would this limit MT FWP and others' ability to make big changes where it is deemed necessary? Some of the proponents seem to think this will essentially preserve our current opportunity in the state based on a contemporary snapshot of that opportunity. It's not clear to me that it does, and it is not clear to me that that is what hunting/fishing/trapping will need to be in our rapidly changing chunk of the republic as time progresses.
There's also an aspect of if it ain't broke don't fix it. Our current constitutional language of "The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights" seems far more solid, and clear, than what they are proposing replace it with. When I hear that other states have this language, I have to ask what the hunting and public trust of wildlife is like in those states, and would our current or future judiciary see it the same.
I'm open to being influenced otherwise, and actually would like to be, but I increasingly get the sense that the bill's proponents are checkers players stumping for something that lawyers will later play chess with.
Last edited:
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I continue to think about this one, because so many people are such frantic advocates for it.
Imagine the resurrected crossbow bill passes. Then imagine this follows and the citizens of Montana choose to take a little white-out to our constitution.
Would we then be, due to current “means and methods” language, forever stuck with crossbows during archery season with no hope of ever correcting course if we thought we needed to?
I know crossbows are a controversial subject, and I’m not trying to go there specifically, but for any regretted idea - being a structure/method of take that, maybe down the road, we think we should scale back and undo, would we then be unable to?
Imagine the resurrected crossbow bill passes. Then imagine this follows and the citizens of Montana choose to take a little white-out to our constitution.
Would we then be, due to current “means and methods” language, forever stuck with crossbows during archery season with no hope of ever correcting course if we thought we needed to?
I know crossbows are a controversial subject, and I’m not trying to go there specifically, but for any regretted idea - being a structure/method of take that, maybe down the road, we think we should scale back and undo, would we then be unable to?
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,636
I’m thinking some of the same concerns @Nameless Range is voicing.
For example- In 50 years if “current means and methods” are continued as FWP’s management strategy for mountain goats or Shiras moose and those means and methods are scientifically proven to be detrimental to the population and the species in in decline or in danger of local extirpation will this Constitutional amendment prohibit changing hunting practices and tag allocation to protect the species?
I love the intent behind ensuring we have a right to hunt, fish, and trap so long as the language protecting those rights also prioritizes the protection of the wildlife we hunt, fish and trap.
For example- In 50 years if “current means and methods” are continued as FWP’s management strategy for mountain goats or Shiras moose and those means and methods are scientifically proven to be detrimental to the population and the species in in decline or in danger of local extirpation will this Constitutional amendment prohibit changing hunting practices and tag allocation to protect the species?
I love the intent behind ensuring we have a right to hunt, fish, and trap so long as the language protecting those rights also prioritizes the protection of the wildlife we hunt, fish and trap.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Montana has a well written, great Constitution and liberal hunting opportunities, with so far, healthy populations of huntable wildlife.
Our Constitution is admired and envied by other states. It ain't broken ... quit trying to fix it!!!
Our Constitution is admired and envied by other states. It ain't broken ... quit trying to fix it!!!
MTelkHuntress
Well-known member
I didn't see this article posted here but I think it does a good job highlighting different viewpoints on the bill.
missoulacurrent.com
"Fielder appeared flustered by all the opposition. He said he was disappointed that only Republicans had signed on as cosponsors for the bill.
“I’ve worked against animal rights bills since 2000. I’ve studied other states. I’ve made it basically a science to myself,” Fielder said. “This should not be a partisan bill. But it is.”"
"Stockgrowers spokeswoman Raylee Honeycutt said the bill acknowledges private property rights but a right to hunt could strengthen claims that sportsmen should be allowed to cross corners of private land to reach landlocked public land."
"Both the Montana Stockgrowers Association and the Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators worried that the bill could open the door to anglers using their right to fish to demand that agricultural producers give up more water for instream flows during dry periods."
"Finally, tribal representatives spoke up, saying the bill potentially clashed with treaty rights and tribal compacts in Indian Country. Montana’s tribes oversee a lot of land where they allow non-tribal members to recreate and they have rights on lands and waters outside their reservations."
Ag producers, tribes, sportsmen oppose Constitutional amendment
A bill that would add more emphasis in the Montana Constitution to the ability to hunt, fish and trap brought out some surprising testimony, including opposition from the Montana Stockgrowers Association and support from a California website creator.
missoulacurrent.com
"Fielder appeared flustered by all the opposition. He said he was disappointed that only Republicans had signed on as cosponsors for the bill.
“I’ve worked against animal rights bills since 2000. I’ve studied other states. I’ve made it basically a science to myself,” Fielder said. “This should not be a partisan bill. But it is.”"
"Stockgrowers spokeswoman Raylee Honeycutt said the bill acknowledges private property rights but a right to hunt could strengthen claims that sportsmen should be allowed to cross corners of private land to reach landlocked public land."
"Both the Montana Stockgrowers Association and the Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators worried that the bill could open the door to anglers using their right to fish to demand that agricultural producers give up more water for instream flows during dry periods."
"Finally, tribal representatives spoke up, saying the bill potentially clashed with treaty rights and tribal compacts in Indian Country. Montana’s tribes oversee a lot of land where they allow non-tribal members to recreate and they have rights on lands and waters outside their reservations."
sacountry
Well-known member
Thanks for sharing. That explains why the stockgrowers are against it. I would think that would put UPOM on the side of conservationists which is rare.I didn't see this article posted here but I think it does a good job highlighting different viewpoints on the bill.
Ag producers, tribes, sportsmen oppose Constitutional amendment
A bill that would add more emphasis in the Montana Constitution to the ability to hunt, fish and trap brought out some surprising testimony, including opposition from the Montana Stockgrowers Association and support from a California website creator.
"Fielder appeared flustered by all the opposition. He said he was disappointed that only Republicans had signed on as cosponsors for the bill.
“I’ve worked against animal rights bills since 2000. I’ve studied other states. I’ve made it basically a science to myself,” Fielder said. “This should not be a partisan bill. But it is.”"
"Stockgrowers spokeswoman Raylee Honeycutt said the bill acknowledges private property rights but a right to hunt could strengthen claims that sportsmen should be allowed to cross corners of private land to reach landlocked public land."
"Both the Montana Stockgrowers Association and the Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators worried that the bill could open the door to anglers using their right to fish to demand that agricultural producers give up more water for instream flows during dry periods."
"Finally, tribal representatives spoke up, saying the bill potentially clashed with treaty rights and tribal compacts in Indian Country. Montana’s tribes oversee a lot of land where they allow non-tribal members to recreate and they have rights on lands and waters outside their reservations."
It's an interesting take on "current means and methods" if you apply it to Wyoming.....we're thinking of "current means and methods" in terms of weapons, but it could be applied to access as well. For instance, if the Wyoming cornering crossing case turns into law, then "current means and methods" could be interpreted as corner crossing is a current means for taking game. That's illuminating because there aren't any guard rails on geographic scope of what "current means and methods". Extreme application, but if Idaho approved full auto weapons, would that then constitutionally apply to us in MT under the definition of "current means and methods"?
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,636
I think some of Fielder’s consternation might because he’s looking at it for what he intends for the bill to do (which I think is great) and the rest of us with reservations are concerned with how broadly the rights are described and knowing how many different ways that is going to be interpreted and fought over in the future.
sacountry
Well-known member
Agreed.....which one would think would serve as a strong message to our state legislatures and GG that there is a major gap in trust right now.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
That statement is based on the assumption that they even care about public trust. Lack of Legislative Logic Looms Large Lately! Lack exponentially to the sixth power in the denominator. Is this session over yet?!!! Not soon enough!
Nameless Range
Well-known member
With an amendment related to the protection of water rights, it sounds like the Montana stockgrowers now support the bill.
It’s one of those things where I can’t tell how big of a deal it is or could be - mysterious implications.
It’s one of those things where I can’t tell how big of a deal it is or could be - mysterious implications.
sacountry
Well-known member
That's weird because it still leaves open the potential for strengthening the argument for corner crossings which they sure would oppose.
