Montana - Ballot Initiative would allow Montana Landowners to Hunt Without Permits

[Stone_Ice_1]

As a side story to just how extreme some of these folks are, Montana tried to create an enhancement for possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. Hinkle down voted it saying, and I quote, "Even drug dealers have a right to protect their stash". And yet we act surprised when we keep electing them and they keep voting in such an inept manner.

The problem is most people in Montana (I would venture to guess around 90%) have no clue how ANY of their representatives vote on anything. I ask some people in my circle of friends how they feel about how somebody they voted for during the election and how they voted on some specific bill or issue, all of them tell me straight away that they don't know how any of the people they voted for actually vote. They just vote a party ticket and call it good.

I great example of this is anything regarding public lands. They see some brochure from the politician saying he will protect public lands and that is enough for them. They have no idea how that person actually votes when it comes down to it.

 

[RandanP]

Representative Hinkle is the likely chair for House Fish, Wildlife and Parks, btw.

He should brush up on the public trust doctrine then.

 

[Ben Lamb]

He should brush up on the public trust doctrine then.

He's also stated that it should be easier for non-residents to hunt in MT.

 

[atlas]

This law is so landowner's who bought land within an Indian reservation that only allows big game hunting for tribal members only can hunt. The wording is to get landowners outside of these Indian reservations to be on board. It's an attempt to gain support.

Here are the public comments, only 1 in favor of the proposal. The comment is from a guy responsible for the proposal. https://leg.mt.gov/content/Committe...Meetings/2023-Dec-6/I-193-public-comments.pdf

Rick Schoening is one of the guys responsible for this and he has attempted it several times. He is quoted below from the public commit. He says tribal members want this, which is hilarious because they are the ones who actually have the power to change the law on their own reservation...

Greetings Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Rick Schoening. I currently make my home in Lake County and own land here. I am a retired Montana Game Warden. I served in this capacity for 28 years; the last 21 years was in the Polson Warden District. I also served 7 years as the Detective for the city of Polson Police Department. During these 35 years behind the badge, I have always followed the rule of law and expected everyone else to do the same, including the State of Montana. I served the citizens of Montana, just as you all are doing. I am not affiliated with any organization but am representing myself and the private landowners of over 3.3 million acres. I am here today as a proponent of I-193. Unjustly, landowners living within the exterior boundaries of the seven Indian reservations, do NOT have the same rights as landowners living outside of these political boundaries. This is wrong!! We are citizens and taxpayers just like the rest of the people. As the game warden in Polson I witnessed this inequity firsthand. I was the guy drinking coffee with and listening to many of these landowners. Landowner relations was a big part of my job. I was also the guy issuing tickets to some of them or their family members, for shooting deer or elk on their own lands. I never felt it was right, but it was my job to enforce the Fish Wildlife and Parks Commission’s regulation. I made it a point that someday I would fix this wrong. This is the reason that I am here today. I recently spoke with a tribal elder from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes about this initiative. Here is what he had to say,” This rule is obviously a white man rule. No Indian would ever ask to have this done. Our people have always hunted together and shared the bounty of the hunt with our families and neighbors. The wild elk and deer belong to everyone., No doubt a white man rule”. He supports the initiative as do many other tribal members, especially those who have children and grandchildren that cannot be enrolled due to blood quantum. They wish to someday be able to include all of their family on the hunt. Can the State of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission legally close private lands to hunting? Yes but, only when they follow Montana law MCA 87-1-305. This requires the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission to obtain landowner permission before creating a refuge on private land. This has never been done. No documentation exists. This law has been in effect since before 1947. It makes sense, what landowner would allow the state to close their lands to hunting without their permission? The fish, wildlife and parks commission has been violating this law all of these years. FWP is also neglecting their statutory obligation to assist and mitigate game damage experienced by these landowners. Telling them to call the tribes is not a proper response. The tribes have no obligation to help these landowners. Economic losses are very large. It is very clear that FWP does not care about these Montana citizens. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has a big game management policy. It is their guide on how to manage deer, elk and other big game species. There are two main components. The health and viability of the game population and the tolerance of landowners. Nowhere in their policy, do political boundaries dictate their management. But yet it is a political boundary, that prevents these owners of 3.3 million acres the opportunity to harvest a deer on their own land. Section 7 of Article 9 of the Montana Constitution guarantees the Preservation of Harvest Heritage. It says, “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. Thousands of Montana citizens are having this constitutional right infringed on by the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission, on their OWN property! I wish to thank you all for giving me the opportunity to submit comments to this committee. This is a very, very important initiative. It is about treating landowners fairly across the state. The people of Montana will speak loudly at the ballot box. I urge you to do the right thing by us Montanans and endorse I-193! I will be available to answer any questions you may have. I have been working on this for a long time.

 

[Ben Lamb]

From FWP:

FWP Director issues statement on proposed ballot initiative​

HELENA – Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Director Dustin Temple issued a statement following news coverage of a ballot initiative proposed by a private citizen in Montana.

“Montana statute prevents state agencies from taking any position on citizen-led ballot initiatives,” Director Temple said. “We understand this is a topic of interest for hunters around the state, but in accordance with state law, FWP and its staff will offer no opinions on this matter.”

He continued: “However, we will be ready to answer factual questions as they arise from lawmakers, reporters, or members of the public.”

 

[DP_PublicLands]

Ya this would be more of a force of the land owners hand. If you want your tag to be valid for the entire unit your ranch goes into the bma program. Otherwise your tag is only good for your property

That is not a solution. No one looks at the details of the BMA program. You can enroll in the BMA program, set your own rules, and allow who you want to hunt. I know of several BMAs that are thousands of acres and all walk in from the highway - don't even allow stock, IF you even get on the list. Several I've called and gotten through 5 minutes after the date and time they open to call and they are "full"

 

[Schaaf]

From FWP:

FWP Director issues statement on proposed ballot initiative​

HELENA – Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Director Dustin Temple issued a statement following news coverage of a ballot initiative proposed by a private citizen in Montana.

“Montana statute prevents state agencies from taking any position on citizen-led ballot initiatives,” Director Temple said. “We understand this is a topic of interest for hunters around the state, but in accordance with state law, FWP and its staff will offer no opinions on this matter.”

He continued: “However, we will be ready to answer factual questions as they arise from lawmakers, reporters, or members of the public.”

Dustin would rather not wade into legal theories unless it’s corner crossing.

 

[DP_PublicLands]

Dustin would rather not wade into legal theories unless it’s corner crossing.

HA! Exactly right!

 

[Schaaf]

And while we’re attempting to impose our will on sovereign nations, I say we extend to the North Pole. I’ve been itching to hunt mule deer in the Grasslands National Park.

 

[Gerald Martin]

And while we’re attempting to impose our will on sovereign nations, I say we extend to the North Pole. I’ve been itching to hunt mule deer in the Grasslands National Park. View attachment 304994

Yes. Those interlopers in our northern territories have done a better job than the tribes in MT with managing for trophy mule deer. We should have a ballot initiative that requires them to let you and I hunt on MT general tags. It’s our God given right as sovereign citizens….

 

[silencedogood]

I have to speak, especially after watching Randy's video. I live within a reservation and own a few acres and have lived here my whole life, born here too(didn't move there). Because i am not enough blood quantum native blood, i cannot hunt deer and elk on my own land so this is the purpose of this initiative, to allow all non-tribal members to be allowed to hunt on non-tribal land while following all the same rules and regulations. Yes, i will still need to get a tag like i have for my entire life.

Randy in his video said some misleading things that has to be addressed, granted that no one knows better then someone that actually lives within reservation boundaries.. lol

Did he read the ACTUAL initiative??? NO! For everyone to educate themselves.

"I-193 will allow increased hunting opportunities for landowners. If passed, the initiative prohibits hunting regulations that would impose
or effect a prohibition on a landowner hunting deer, elk, or black bear on the landowner’s private property during a statewide general
hunting season. Landowners would still need to be licensed and follow all hunting laws and regulations pertaining to means of take and bag limits. An exception would allow the Fish and Wildlife Commission to limit this landowner's hunting right when wildlife populations are in severe decline due to environmental factors such as disease or drought. I-193 may result in a decrease in non-resident license revenue; however, that reduction cannot be determined at this time. I-193 will also
likely require additional game wardens to administer; however, that cost cannot be determined."

Will land owners still need a tag...while current regulations say i can't hunt.yes

will land owners get a tag since they own land within reservation boundaries instantly? NO!!! They will get put into the same landowner lottery that ALREADY EXISTS OUTSIDE OF THE RESERVATION BOUNDARIES. " If you dont like the existing law for the whole state for landowners, i guess change it lol Here Randy, educate yourself on the ALREADY EXISTING LANDOWNER PREFERENCE stuff in place..https://fwp.mt.gov/hunt/licensingbasics#:~:text=Landowners%20who%20own%20640%20or,contact%20406%2D444%2D2950.

will out-of-state landowners get to hunt on their own land? YES, with the proper license and follow the ALREADY EXISTING REGULATIONS!

To All the people that own their own land within a reservation boundary and cant hunt because you are not tribal blood quantum enough or you have too much European ancestry... I AM SORRY ...AND I AM SPEAKING OUT FOR ME AND FUTURE GENERATIONS...

Before making decisions, educate yourselves on what this is actually about...start by reading the entire initiative.

AND NO.
This is not the Wild West with no tag, and no limits..Even though the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, outdoor life, etc want you to think otherwise ...it IS JUST OPENING MORE LAND AVAILABLE TO HUNT LIKE THE REST OF THE existing 1000s of private lands outside reservation boundaries. Another big opportunity for more private land owners to work with BLM.

To all that don't own land within reservation boundaries>>>Would you rather have it still locked away like it is now?? Or would you like the opportunity to hunt on more land??

Educate yourselves on the ACTUAL INIATIVE.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Educate yourselves on the ACTUAL INIATIVE.

Please educate me regarding tribal laws and regulations. Whether or not you may hunt on your private land within the border of a reservation is a question to be answered by tribal authority ... NOT through an initiative passed by non-tribal Montana citizens outside the reservation. Is that statement incorrect?
Please explain.

 

[Big Fin]

I have to speak, especially after watching Randy's video. I live within a reservation and own a few acres and have lived here my whole life, born here too(didn't move there). Because i am not enough blood quantum native blood, i cannot hunt deer and elk on my own land so this is the purpose of this initiative, to allow all non-tribal members to be allowed to hunt on non-tribal land while following all the same rules and regulations. Yes, i will still need to get a tag like i have for my entire life.

Randy in his video said some misleading things that has to be addressed, granted that no one knows better then someone that actually lives within reservation boundaries.. lol

Did he read the ACTUAL initiative??? NO! For everyone to educate themselves.

"I-193 will allow increased hunting opportunities for landowners. If passed, the initiative prohibits hunting regulations that would impose
or effect a prohibition on a landowner hunting deer, elk, or black bear on the landowner’s private property during a statewide general
hunting season. Landowners would still need to be licensed and follow all hunting laws and regulations pertaining to means of take and bag limits. An exception would allow the Fish and Wildlife Commission to limit this landowner's hunting right when wildlife populations are in severe decline due to environmental factors such as disease or drought. I-193 may result in a decrease in non-resident license revenue; however, that reduction cannot be determined at this time. I-193 will also
likely require additional game wardens to administer; however, that cost cannot be determined."

Will land owners still need a tag...while current regulations say i can't hunt.yes

will land owners get a tag since they own land within reservation boundaries instantly? NO!!! They will get put into the same landowner lottery that ALREADY EXISTS OUTSIDE OF THE RESERVATION BOUNDARIES. " If you dont like the existing law for the whole state for landowners, i guess change it lol Here Randy, educate yourself on the ALREADY EXISTING LANDOWNER PREFERENCE stuff in place..https://fwp.mt.gov/hunt/licensingbasics#:~:text=Landowners%20who%20own%20640%20or,contact%20406%2D444%2D2950.

will out-of-state landowners get to hunt on their own land? YES, with the proper license and follow the ALREADY EXISTING REGULATIONS!

To All the people that own their own land within a reservation boundary and cant hunt because you are not tribal blood quantum enough or you have too much European ancestry... I AM SORRY ...AND I AM SPEAKING OUT FOR ME AND FUTURE GENERATIONS...

Before making decisions, educate yourselves on what this is actually about...start by reading the entire initiative.

AND NO.
This is not the Wild West with no tag, and no limits..Even though the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, outdoor life, etc want you to think otherwise ...it IS JUST OPENING MORE LAND AVAILABLE TO HUNT LIKE THE REST OF THE existing 1000s of private lands outside reservation boundaries. Another big opportunity for more private land owners to work with BLM.

To all that don't own land within reservation boundaries>>>Would you rather have it still locked away like it is now?? Or would you like the opportunity to hunt on more land??

Educate yourselves on the ACTUAL INIATIVE.

I read the initiative before I did the video. Have you read it or have you had an attorney read it and explain its consequences?

What you say is the purpose of the initiative might have been the intention of the person sponsoring such, but that is not what the language says according to the attorney I discussed it with. And the language as written in the initiative is what would become law, if passed.

As written, it does not impose any geographic boundaries that confine the MCA amendments to lands within reservation administrative boundaries. That is very problematic for areas outside of reservations. If it was worded to that tighter scope, it might lessen the big concern in the following paragraphs.

In areas with limited-entry draw permits (permits being defined under AMR/MCA differently than licenses), which there are many outside the reservation administrative boundaries that would be included under the current loose language, landowners would only need licenses and there is nothing in that initiative that says they would have to draw one of these limited-entry permits. They would merely need to hold a license. That's a huge distinction.

And even in areas without permits, imagine how many non-residents would now get General Licenses by merely owning land (no defined acreage requirement), being the lessee of land, or being a guest of a landowner. If we think Montana issues a lot of General Licenses to non-residents now, this would ramp that up even more.

Here's the initiative language from the Secretary of State website - https://sosmt.gov/wp-admin/admin-aj...en=c9a10d46d0de9e1d618207ed236373a3&preview=1

I-193 amends MCA 87-1-301 related to Commission Powers. Link here - https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0870/chapter_0010/part_0030/section_0010/0870-0010-0030-0010.html

I-193 also amends MCA 87-2-121 relates to hunting on private property. Link here - https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0870/chapter_0020/part_0010/section_0210/0870-0020-0010-0210.html

Neither of those proposed amendments restrict the scope of this initiative to lands within reservation administrative boundaries. Why the drafting person did not impose the scope if that was the sponsor's intention, is a good question to ask that drafting person. Or as you say, "educate yourself on the actual initiative."

I've been hammered by a lot of people who didn't like that video. Most claim I don't know what I'm talking about. I ask them to show me where I'm wrong. So far, nobody has sent me any information demonstrating what I am wrong about. If I am wrong, I'll correct that when I am shown to such.

It is for those reasons that I brought this up on my platforms and produced a video about it. I was not the person who crafted this language and wrote such a loosely/poorly written initiative.

If there is angst about the topic, that lies with whatever attorney drafted that initiative language. Time would be better served to get a better written initiative than try to convince resident hunters that there are not significant unintended consequences to this initiative as currently worded.

That said, I hope a mechanism is found so you can hunt your own land.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I want to know the answer to what I consider a basic question. If the Initiative were to pass how can Montana or the FWP force the reservation government to change a tribal regulation that forbids non-tribal members from hunting big game within their reservation?

 

[The Hedgehog]

Representative Hinkle is the likely chair for House Fish, Wildlife and Parks, btw.

 

[DFS]

View attachment 307133

That would make one heck of a euro mount.

 

[MTLabrador]

View attachment 307133

“Looks like a lot of meat”. Yep, all 40 pounds of it.

 

[mmw194287]

View attachment 307133

Pretty crazy coincidence: the name of my YouTube show (currently in development) is also NOT MUCH OF A BUCK, BUT...

Damnit...back to the drawing board I guess.

 

[idahohuntr]

I want to know the answer to what I consider a basic question. If the Initiative were to pass how can Montana or the FWP force the reservation government to change a tribal regulation that forbids non-tribal members from hunting big game within their reservation?

Montana v. United States. 1981 SCOTUS decision.

Cross-posting a bit...but with that decision, I can't quite get this petition.

 

[silencedogood]

I read the initiative before I did the video. Have you read it or have you had an attorney read it and explain its consequences?

What you say is the purpose of the initiative might have been the intention of the person sponsoring such, but that is not what the language says according to the attorney I discussed it with. And the language as written in the initiative is what would become law, if passed.

As written, it does not impose any geographic boundaries that confine the MCA amendments to lands within reservation administrative boundaries. That is very problematic for areas outside of reservations. If it was worded to that tighter scope, it might lessen the big concern in the following paragraphs.

In areas with limited-entry draw permits (permits being defined under AMR/MCA differently than licenses), which there are many outside the reservation administrative boundaries that would be included under the current loose language, landowners would only need licenses and there is nothing in that initiative that says they would have to draw one of these limited-entry permits. They would merely need to hold a license. That's a huge distinction.

And even in areas without permits, imagine how many non-residents would now get General Licenses by merely owning land (no defined acreage requirement), being the lessee of land, or being a guest of a landowner. If we think Montana issues a lot of General Licenses to non-residents now, this would ramp that up even more.

Here's the initiative language from the Secretary of State website - https://sosmt.gov/wp-admin/admin-aj...en=c9a10d46d0de9e1d618207ed236373a3&preview=1

I-193 amends MCA 87-1-301 related to Commission Powers. Link here - https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0870/chapter_0010/part_0030/section_0010/0870-0010-0030-0010.html

I-193 also amends MCA 87-2-121 relates to hunting on private property. Link here - https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0870/chapter_0020/part_0010/section_0210/0870-0020-0010-0210.html

Neither of those proposed amendments restrict the scope of this initiative to lands within reservation administrative boundaries. Why the drafting person did not impose the scope if that was the sponsor's intention, is a good question to ask that drafting person. Or as you say, "educate yourself on the actual initiative."

I've been hammered by a lot of people who didn't like that video. Most claim I don't know what I'm talking about. I ask them to show me where I'm wrong. So far, nobody has sent me any information demonstrating what I am wrong about. If I am wrong, I'll correct that when I am shown to such.

It is for those reasons that I brought this up on my platforms and produced a video about it. I was not the person who crafted this language and wrote such a loosely/poorly written initiative.

If there is angst about the topic, that lies with whatever attorney drafted that initiative language. Time would be better served to get a better written initiative than try to convince resident hunters that there are not significant unintended consequences to this initiative as currently worded.

That said, I hope a mechanism is found so you can hunt your own land.

Tha

I read the initiative before I did the video. Have you read it or have you had an attorney read it and explain its consequences?

What you say is the purpose of the initiative might have been the intention of the person sponsoring such, but that is not what the language says according to the attorney I discussed it with. And the language as written in the initiative is what would become law, if passed.

As written, it does not impose any geographic boundaries that confine the MCA amendments to lands within reservation administrative boundaries. That is very problematic for areas outside of reservations. If it was worded to that tighter scope, it might lessen the big concern in the following paragraphs.

In areas with limited-entry draw permits (permits being defined under AMR/MCA differently than licenses), which there are many outside the reservation administrative boundaries that would be included under the current loose language, landowners would only need licenses and there is nothing in that initiative that says they would have to draw one of these limited-entry permits. They would merely need to hold a license. That's a huge distinction.

And even in areas without permits, imagine how many non-residents would now get General Licenses by merely owning land (no defined acreage requirement), being the lessee of land, or being a guest of a landowner. If we think Montana issues a lot of General Licenses to non-residents now, this would ramp that up even more.

Here's the initiative language from the Secretary of State website - https://sosmt.gov/wp-admin/admin-aj...en=c9a10d46d0de9e1d618207ed236373a3&preview=1

I-193 amends MCA 87-1-301 related to Commission Powers. Link here - https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0870/chapter_0010/part_0030/section_0010/0870-0010-0030-0010.html

I-193 also amends MCA 87-2-121 relates to hunting on private property. Link here - https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0870/chapter_0020/part_0010/section_0210/0870-0020-0010-0210.html

Neither of those proposed amendments restrict the scope of this initiative to lands within reservation administrative boundaries. Why the drafting person did not impose the scope if that was the sponsor's intention, is a good question to ask that drafting person. Or as you say, "educate yourself on the actual initiative."

I've been hammered by a lot of people who didn't like that video. Most claim I don't know what I'm talking about. I ask them to show me where I'm wrong. So far, nobody has sent me any information demonstrating what I am wrong about. If I am wrong, I'll correct that when I am shown to such.

It is for those reasons that I brought this up on my platforms and produced a video about it. I was not the person who crafted this language and wrote such a loosely/poorly written initiative.

If there is angst about the topic, that lies with whatever attorney drafted that initiative language. Time would be better served to get a better written initiative than try to convince resident hunters that there are not significant unintended consequences to this initiative as currently worded.

That said, I hope a mechanism is found so you can hunt your own land.

Thank you for the reply. I appreciate that. Talked with my county's prosecutor that has experience in wildlife law/regulation enforcement. very insightful, i would suggest the same for everyone reading. This initiative will affect nowhere else except for us poor souls within rez boundaries as laws/regulations have are already in place for private land owners outside the exterior of reservation boundaries. Any mention to reservations is mute because this is a state issue, not the tribes....Checkerboarded land anyone?... since the land this initiative is affecting is private property aka deeded "fee" lands within the exterior boundary of a reservation...not affecting tribal owned lands, USA in trust lands, etc.

To address your concerns about private land owners (resident or not) getting a by-pass on the draw system and having a only tag..Lets look at the body of the initiative, especially stuff in bold/underline>
(7) Except when wildlife populations are in severe decline due to environmental factors such as disease or drought, the commission may not prohibit deer, elk, or black bear hunting with a state-issued license during a statewide general hunting season by a landowner meeting the requirements of 87-2-121(2). (7)(8)

." Section 2. Section 87-2-121, MCA, is amended to read: "87-2-121. Lawful method of hunting on landowner's private property. In recognition of the inalienable right of persons to acquire and possess property in all lawful ways contained in Article II, section 3, of the Montana constitution and of the heritage of individual citizens to harvest wild game animals contained in Article IX, section 7, of the Montana constitution; (1) a landowner and a landowner's guests and lessees may hunt on the landowner's private property as long as the hunting is conducted in the manner provided by law and is consistent with regulations on means of take and bag limits; and (2) except to protect wildlife populations under 87-1-301(7), hunting regulations may not impose or effect a prohibition on a landowner hunting deer, elk, or black bear on the landowner's private property with a state-issued license if: (a) the hunting is conducted during general hunting season with a state-issued license in the manner provided by law and regulation pertaining to means of take and bag limits; and (b) the landowner is licensed to hunt, having paid the base hunting license fee, and attained a conservation license and the state-issued license or licenses for hunting deer, elk, or black bear"