HB 372 Right to Hunt, Fish and Trap

[MTelkHuntress]

I've seen this floating around on social media quite a bit and was just wondering if anyone else has heard anything. Does this just add trapping to the constitution since the right to hunting and fishing are already there (it think)? I'm still trying to figure out the interpretation of this amendment and was recently talking about it with a friend. I'd be really curious of the implications as I think changes to the constitution should be worded very carefully.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/lchtml/LC3404.htm

 

[Nameless Range]

I’ve read deeper explanations on this from others, and it seems to do more than just involve trapping. Protecting current means and methods being one.

From what I can tell it doesn’t seem to do anything bad, and essentially seems to be a hedging against Montana’s potentially changing demographics, but I’m wondering if I am missing something.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

I've seen this floating around on social media quite a bit and was just wondering if anyone else has heard anything. Does this just add trapping to the constitution since the right to hunting and fishing are already there (it think)? I'm still trying to figure out the interpretation of this amendment and was recently talking about it with a friend. I'd be really curious of the implications as I think changes to the constitution should be worded very carefully.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/lchtml/LC3404.htm

Lemme see if I’m following here? They’re only amending the “trapping” part because the “right to hunt and fish” was already there? That is the only counter argument, is that trapping should not be included?

 

[MTelkHuntress]

I’ve read deeper explanations on this from others, and it seems to do more than just involve trapping. Protecting current means and methods being one.

From what I can tell it doesn’t seem to do anything bad, and essentially seems to be a hedging against Montana’s potentially changing demographics, but I’m wondering if I am missing something.

I haven't heard much and the only bad Ive heard is using this right as a way to go against FWP management, potentially using this to cross fence and also the language of using hunting trapping and fishing as a way to manage wildlife populations when those aren't necessarily the best way in some instances (I don't fully understand the last one).

 

[Hunting Wife]

I haven't heard much and the only bad Ive heard is using this right as a way to go against FWP management, potentially using this to cross fence and also the language of using hunting trapping and fishing as a way to manage wildlife populations when those aren't necessarily the best way in some instances (I don't fully understand the last one).

I could see from a management perspective how that verbiage requiring the state to give preference for primary management tools to be via hunting/fishing/trapping would need to be carefully evaluated. As a manager, I like to keep as many options at my disposal as possible. Don’t limit my tools. You just can’t predict what future problems/challenges you might face, and I don’t like being painted into a corner before I can even anticipate the problem.

That consideration aside, I would love to see trapping included along with hunting/fishing in our Constitution.

 

[Nameless Range]

Anyone have any further thoughts on this?

On one side it doesn’t seem like that big of a deal, but I have heard from another that it may come with some legal baggage if we ever do you have to limit certain activities for the good of the resource.

I’m not a lawyer and don’t understand any of the implications if they exist

 

[VikingsGuy]

I would use, "at least including the right to use current means and methods lawful at the time of passage of this amendment" if it were me. "Current" would be a signal to an "activist" court to update their view of acceptable means and methods under a future "enlightened" perspective in a way folk may not prefer.

 

[Elky Welky]

I would use, "at least including the right to use current means and methods lawful at the time of passage of this amendment" if it were me. "Current" would be a signal to an "activist" court to update their view of acceptable means and methods under a future "enlightened" perspective in a way folk may not prefer.

It goes both ways; "current means and methods" could also be things like drones, helicopters, thermal optics, etc.

 

[Nameless Range]

Here's something I have heard said. If, some day in the future, our FWP decides to severely limit hunting/fishing/trapping for whatever reason - I can imagine a scenario of disease for example, where moratoriums on one of those activities would be in place for the good of the resource, would people be able to claim that their rights were being violated?

On the other hand, such constitutional rights exist in plenty of other states, but then again, fewer and fewer states seem to view wildlife on private land as a public resource.

To me I really don't care either way. This is a hedge against some future Montana where the majority is opposed to hunting and fishing and trapping. Seems damn far off and frankly, is a minnow compared to some of the fish we currently have to fry. Also, constitutional amendments go out to the public for a vote which would give Montanans a lot longer time to think about the pros and cons.

Just wondering out loud. Some contingents seem to think this is the best damn thing to come along ever. They say "It's the most important piece of legislation in our lifetimes". Other contingents, haven't really said a word. The disparity is interesting to me.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Here's something I have heard said. If, some day in the future, our FWP decides to severely limit hunting/fishing/trapping for whatever reason - I can imagine a scenario of disease for example, where moratoriums on one of those activities would be in place for the good of the resource, would people be able to claim that their rights were being violated?

On the other hand, such constitutional rights exist in plenty of other states, but then again, fewer and fewer states seem to view wildlife on private land as a public resource.

To me I really don't care either way. This is a hedge against some future Montana where the majority is opposed to hunting and fishing and trapping. Seems damn far off and frankly, is a minnow compared to some of the fish we currently have to fry. Also, constitutional amendments go out to the public for a vote which would give Montanans a lot longer time to think about the pros and cons.

Just wondering out loud. Some contingents seem to think this is the best damn thing to come along ever. They say "It's the most important piece of legislation in our lifetimes". Other contingents, haven't really said a word. The disparity is interesting to me.

It only has any meaning during the slice of time where between 51% and 65% of voters want to restrict hunting. Less than that and no need, more than that and they just cancel the amendment ala prohibition.

Even then it may have many unintended consequences re: wildlife management. But as a Minnesotan I have no view on how Montanans manage their constitution.

 

[Elky Welky]

Here's something I have heard said. If, some day in the future, our FWP decides to severely limit hunting/fishing/trapping for whatever reason - I can imagine a scenario of disease for example, where moratoriums on one of those activities would be in place for the good of the resource, would people be able to claim that their rights were being violated?

On the other hand, such constitutional rights exist in plenty of other states, but then again, fewer and fewer states seem to view wildlife on private land as a public resource.

To me I really don't care either way. This is a hedge against some future Montana where the majority is opposed to hunting and fishing and trapping. Seems damn far off and frankly, is a minnow compared to some of the fish we currently have to fry. Also, constitutional amendments go out to the public for a vote which would give Montanans a lot longer time to think about the pros and cons.

Just wondering out loud. Some contingents seem to think this is the best damn thing to come along ever. They say "It's the most important piece of legislation in our lifetimes". Other contingents, haven't really said a word. The disparity is interesting to me.

100% agree. There are some very real and pressing issues on the Montana hunting landscape; like threats to Habitat Montana and issues with elk management, that could use the attention this bill has been getting. I’d love to see the energy some of the NGOs have been devoting to this put towards the other things at stake.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Here's something I have heard said. If, some day in the future, our FWP decides to severely limit hunting/fishing/trapping for whatever reason - I can imagine a scenario of disease for example, where moratoriums on one of those activities would be in place for the good of the resource, would people be able to claim that their rights were being violated?

On the other hand, such constitutional rights exist in plenty of other states, but then again, fewer and fewer states seem to view wildlife on private land as a public resource.

To me I really don't care either way. This is a hedge against some future Montana where the majority is opposed to hunting and fishing and trapping. Seems damn far off and frankly, is a minnow compared to some of the fish we currently have to fry. Also, constitutional amendments go out to the public for a vote which would give Montanans a lot longer time to think about the pros and cons.

Just wondering out loud. Some contingents seem to think this is the best damn thing to come along ever. They say "It's the most important piece of legislation in our lifetimes". Other contingents, haven't really said a word. The disparity is interesting to me.

I have no problem with the Constitution defining those activities as rights.

I am leery when the amendment mandates the agency to elevate those activities as the favored management tools a priori. That is inappropriate for a constitutional amendment IMO. It feels a little too close to legislative management of wildlife to me.

But given that most people will think this is just semantics, I don’t think this issue is getting the attention that it maybe should.

 

[sacountry]

I'm hung up on a couple of things. One is the word "current". Crossbows are a current means in most states. Bolt action rifles are a more "current" technology than muzzleloaders. Is the sponsor trying to backdoor crossbows? Two, trapping is included in "harvest of wild fish and wild game" because trapping harvests those things. No need to narrow the scope by defining it more.

Ultimately this feels like a dumb idea to me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. @Ben Lamb anyway to figure out what the sponsor is hoping to accomplish with it?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm hung up on a couple of things. One is the word "current". Crossbows are a current means in most states. Bolt action rifles are a more "current" technology than muzzleloaders. Is the sponsor trying to backdoor crossbows? Two, trapping is included in "harvest of wild fish and wild game" because trapping harvests those things. No need to narrow the scope by defining it more.

Ultimately this feels like a dumb idea to me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. @Ben Lamb anyway to figure out what the sponsor is hoping to accomplish with it?

My understanding is that the hope is to stop people from exercising their constitutional right to get ballot initiatives against forms of harvest that are currently employed for the take of wildlife. While I sympathize with that desire, I think the language is too nebulous to do what they think it will, and the unintended consequences are too great.

When I worked on this issue in 17, the same things were in play but the private property rights issues were even greater. This version has somewhat better language but @Hunting Wife's take on making the right to hunt, fish and trap a priority right is correct. If passed, this could lead to significant conflict and litigation around whether this means that landowners now have the right to hunt, fish and trap w/o any input from the state (Hence UPOM support) or that everyone has the right to trespass to hunt, fish and trap because my priority right to do so trumps the secondary right of keeping trespass off private property.

Ultimately, MT's right to harvest is a well thought out approach on this issue. It works, and it doesn't need changing.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The attached documents were from the first go-round with this in 2017, but I think a lot of the issues brought up here are still in play:

 

[BigHornRam]

Anyone have any further thoughts on this?

On one side it doesn’t seem like that big of a deal, but I have heard from another that it may come with some legal baggage if we ever do you have to limit certain activities for the good of the resource.

I’m not a lawyer and don’t understand any of the implications if they exist

Footloose is spending a lot of money on deceptive ads opposing this. Keeps the local morning news stations solvent, I suppose.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I like the intent. However…

Coding “current means and methods” as constitutional rights rather than administrative rule set by FWP seems problematic to me.

Wildlife population dynamics and human population dynamics are in a continual state of flux. Removing the ability to control the amount of harvest or means of harvest in response to the health of the resource seems shortsighted to me.

I think history has shown us that when we prioritize the exploitation of a resource over the careful stewardship of that resource both the resource and our opportunity to harvest the resource suffers.

I know the intent of this bill is to be a legal bulwark against the prohibition of historical hunting, trapping and fishing practices by members of our society who do not participate or appreciate those practices. Given what attitudes I have observed and experienced from some of the folks who are the most fierce protectors of our right to harvest, I am not certain we deserve legal protection to continue over pressuring a diminishing public resource.

If I had equal confidence that the folks pushing this legislation were as dedicated to promoting healthy wildlife resources on publicly accessible lands as they are dedicated to protecting our opportunities to exploit wildlife resources on public lands I would be more optimistic about the effects of this constitutional amendment.


It is my opinion that this may very well be a pyrrhic legal victory. We may very well have the constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap but if in 30 years, current means and methods are not adjusted to reflect the health of the resource we may have such poor hunting on the majority of publicly accessible land that we might as well not call it a constitutional right.

Our current attitudes and understanding of what we define as opportunity should be examined and evaluated within our ranks or it will certainly be judged by those without our appreciation of consumptive harvest.

 

[sacountry]

I guess if I play this out further in my head, this could become a legal sticking point when we eventually go to choose your weapon. It would put harvest and opportunity ahead of conservation...all based on a revised constitutional right.

 

[sacountry]

@Ben Lamb are you able to synthesize these thoughts across the other conservation groups to see if we have mutual agreement that this is not a good bill? Might be an opportunity to jointly work with MOGA, MWF, etc on stopping a bill. Is it still in committee slated for comment?

 

[Ben Lamb]

It had a robust hearing today. It's up to the committee now. I would expect it to come out of committee however.

Not sure there are enough votes for it on the floor. It will require 2/3 majority vote to be placed on the ballot. That's 67 in the house & 34 in the Senate.