Montana HB-139 Why Should You Care?

[Gerald Martin]

I know we’ve been have a lot of discussions about the issues leading up to Representative Hinkle’s introduction of HB-139 to the Montana Legislature this session and I have been thinking a lot about why all Montanans should care about this bill.

Currently, this bill sits awaiting executive committee action for continued movement towards becoming law or being tabled.

As most folks on here are aware, I am one of nine authors of a proposal to restructure current general season regulations that we plan to ask the FWP commission to include for consideration during the public scoping meetings leading up to the 26/27 season setting at the end of 2025. Currently, this proposal is on its 2nd draft as we consider input from individuals and sportsmen’s groups and conservation organizations. In other words it is not yet complete and formally introduced into the season setting process.

Admittedly, there are parts of our proposal that are controversial among the Montana hunting community. Those of us authoring the proposal have a strong belief that there is a compelling biological, ethical, and quality hunting opportunity case to be made for those controversial portions of our proposal, but recognize that the will of Montana hunters and natural resource stakeholders is incredibly important in any decisions that the commission makes regarding seasons that affect all of us.

What connection does our proposal have to HB-139 and why should you care, you may ask?

In his introduction of HB-139 to the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee this past Tuesday, Representative Hinkle specifically singled out our drafting and public release of our proposal as the impetus of his bill that would change the Montana statute giving the Montana FWP Commission the authority to govern season lengths, bag limits, closures, etc.

Video of House FWP Committee meeting. https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/0030...wser/PowerBrowserV2/20250114/-1/54757#agenda_
The changes included in HB-139 would specifically prohibit MT FWP from making changes to mule deer hunting in the following manner.

“ a.) The commission may not close the hunting of mule deer bucks during the general hunting season:
i. In more than 20% of hunting districts in the state in a given season.
ii. for more than 2 years within a 6 year period in any one hunting district;or
iii. In any hunting district prior to November 6.

(b.) This subsection (10) does not apply to any district restriction on mule deer buck hunting that was in place prior to December 1, 2024.”

HB-139’s proposed inclusion of that specific language into MCA 87-1-304 triggered an opposition letter from nearly 30 state and national conservation organizations that Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation rep Charlie Booher presented to the committee during the hearing.
Here is their letter of opposition.


*** Anaconda Sportsman’s Club *** Delta Waterfowl *** Ducks Unlimited *** Boone and Crocke= Club
*** Flathead Wildlife Inc. *** GallaCn Wildlife AssociaCon *** InternaConal Hunter EducaCon
AssociaCon-USA *** Laurel Rod and Gun Club *** Montana Chapter of the NaConal Wild Turkey
FederaCon *** Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society *** Montana ConservaCon Society ***
Montana OuOi=ers & Guides AssociaCon *** Montana Stockgrowers AssociaCon *** Montana Trout
Unlimited *** Montana Union Sportsmen Alliance *** Montana Wildlife FederaCon *** Montana Wild
Sheep FoundaCon *** Mule Deer FoundaCon *** NaConal Deer AssociaCon *** Pheasants Forever ***
Pope & Young Club *** Property and Environment Research Center *** Quail Forever *** Safari Club
InternaConal *** Theodore Roosevelt ConservaCon Partnership *** Trout Unlimited *** Rocky
Mountain Elk FoundaCon *** Whitetails Unlimited *** Wild Sheep FoundaCon ***
Sen. Denley Loge, Chair
Senate Fish & Game Commi=ee
Rep. Jedediah Hinkle, Chair
House Fish, Wildlife, & Parks Commi=ee
1301 E 6th Ave
1301 E 6th Ave
Helena, MT 59601
Helena, MT 59601
January 14, 2025
Re: Sportsman, Landowner, OuOi=er, & Producer OpposiCon to Se`ng HunCng Seasons in Statute
Dear Chair Loge & Chair Hinkle:
We write to express our shared opposiCon to se`ng hunCng, fishing, and trapping seasons in
the Montana Code Annotated. Today, that means we ask you to vote NO on HB139, but we understand
that other legislaCon like this will come before your commi=ee soon.
We understand that there are widespread frustraCons with the current populaCon condiCons of
some of Montana’s most iconic fish and wildlife species, as well as with some of the policies, processes,
and procedures at the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Department. We share some of these
frustraCons. However, we are commi=ed to ensuring that the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission
retains their ability to regulate the means and method of take for fish and wildlife species in the state.
The current Commission processes allow for changes to regulaCons and seasons on an annual
basis to respond to dynamic wildlife populaCons, regional variaCons in landscape and watershed
condiCons, and hunter pressure. Further, these bimonthly meeCngs facilitate regular public input from a
wide range of stakeholders, including the professional biologists at the FWP who appear Cme and again
to present the best available science on each rulemaking effort. Given the legislature only meets for 90
days every other year, se`ng seasons and specific regulaCons in statute reduce our collecCve ability to
respond to emergent threats and capitalize on opportuniCes.
We look forward to working with you over the course of this 69th session of the Montana
legislature to address your concerns in ways that facilitate adapCve management of our state’s fish and
wildlife resources.
Yours in ConservaCon,
Anaconda Sportsman’s Club
Delta Waterfowl
Ducks Unlimited
Boone and Crocke= Club
Flathead Wildlife Inc.
GallaCn Wildlife AssociaCon
InternaConal Hunter EducaCon AssociaCon-USA
Laurel Rod and Gun Club
Montana Chapter of the NaConal Wild Turkey FederaCon
Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society
Montana ConservaCon Society
Montana OuOi=ers & Guides AssociaCon
Montana Stockgrowers AssociaCon
Montana Trout Unlimited
Montana Union Sportsmen Alliance
Montana Wildlife FederaCon
Montana Wild Sheep FoundaCon
Mule Deer FoundaCon
NaConal Deer AssociaCon
Pheasants Forever
Pope & Young Club
Property and Environment Research Center
Quail Forever
Safari Club InternaConal
Theodore Roosevelt ConservaCon Partnership
Trout Unlimited
Rocky Mountain Elk FoundaCon
Whitetails Unlimited
Wild Sheep FoundaCon
CC: Montana Senate Fish & Game Commi=ee
Montana House Fish, Wildlife, & Parks Commi=ee


Why would a bill intended to block potential implementation of one single portion of an unfinished proposal provoke such opposition from conservation groups? Was it because all those groups support the language in our sportsman proposal? Hardly. Even though I would be beyond ecstatic for our proposal to have such support, these groups responded to a much more serious concern than our proposal.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Current MCA-87-1-304 reads in part “….the commission may: (a) fix seasons, bag limits, possession limits, and season limits;
(b). Open or close or shorten or lengthen seasons on any species of game, bird, fish, or fur bearing animal as defined by 87-2-101.

HB-139 would define a specific prohibition on how the commission would be allowed to regulate mule deer hunting, regardless of biological consideration or public sentiment.

I know that everyone has an opinion about the benefits or disadvantages of our proposal but I am asking each of you to set those feelings of either support or opposition aside and consider what implications HD-139 has if encoded in to law. I’m going to switch thought process a bit and ask you to consider the hugely controversial decision that MT FWP made back in 1975 to stop stocking hatchery trout in rivers throughout the state.

Here’s a short video on that subject.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Looking back on the effects of that decision with the benefit of nearly fifty years of experience we can see how that decision of FWP to implement a controversial policy change in response to compelling biological evidence that change was needed for the sake of the resource, we now know that was a good decision for both the resource and for the people who love to fish and care about fish.

Today, Montana’s trout fishery is one of the world’s best fisheries and produces hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue annually within the state.


Today, no one believes we should be stocking hatchery trout throughout the state.

That was not the case back in 1975. I ask you to consider what the state of MT trout fishing would be if the Legislature would have passed a law requiring FWP to continue stocking trout because fishing for stockers was a time honored tradition among trout anglers. What would have happened if that law would have been passed as soon as the proposal to stop stocking became part of public conversation? I don’t think it’s a logical stretch to imagine that continuing stocking would have been a popular sentiment among anglers at the time.

 

[mtmuley]

Looking back on the effects of that controversial decision with the benefit of nearly fifty years of experience we can see how that decision of FWP to implement a controversial policy change in response to compelling biological evidence that change was needed for the sake of the resource, we now know that was a good decision for both the resource and for the people who love to fish and care about fish.

Today, Montana’s trout fishery is one of the world’s best fisheries and produces hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue annually within the state.
View attachment 357300

Today, no one believes we should be stocking hatchery trout throughout the state.

That was not the case back in 1975. I ask you to consider what the state of MT trout fishing would be if the Legislature would have passed a law requiring FWP to continue stocking trout because fishing for stockers was a time honored tradition among trout anglers. What would have happened if that law would have been passed as soon as the proposal to stop stocking became part of public conversation? I don’t think it’s a logical stretch to imagine that continuing stocking would have been a popular sentiment among anglers at the time.

Thanks Gerald. I think I get where you are going here. Especially the time honored tradition angle. mtmuley

 

[Gerald Martin]

Consider another example of where MT FWP has curtailed or changed fishing opportunities.

Currently, many rivers have Hoot Owl restrictions based on temperature and river conditions when anglers are not allowed the opportunity to fish.

If the logic of HB-139 were applied, why shouldn’t legislators pass specific regulation into law that would require FWP to keep their favorite rivers open if they see fit?

I am not privy to the conversations and thought processes behind those conservation groups opposition to HB-139 but I think it’s self evident that they all recognize that specific exclusions or mandatory exemptions codified into law could be manifested in nearly infinite ways at the interests of individual legislators.

 

[B&CTom]

Thanks to you and the others for taking up the fight on this issue. Many of us have shared the same concerns by writing the committee. I’m encouraged by the resounding opposition by the numerous groups you’ve cited. It could be a battle, particularly at the committee level. If it isn’t tabled, I certainly hope it doesn’t become law.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I want to clarify that I am not comparing our proposal as an apples to apples comparison with the decision to stop stocking hatchery trout.

My use of that as an example is to illustrate that if legislation is used to block a potentially controversial policy change before its allowed to go through the public process and decided upon by the properly authorized body, both the resource and Montana stakeholders stand to be adversely affected, regardless of the good intentions of why legislation is passed.

Representative Hinkle stated several times before the committee that he brought the bill as a response to his constituents fears that they would lose their opportunity to hunt mule deer in the rut.

I found that part resonated with me. I and the other authors of our proposal also fear losing mule deer hunting in the rut. But even more than that, we fear losing mule deer hunting opportunities as a whole. Everyone within the conservation community and hunters are concerned about the state of mule deer in Montana. We all agree that something needs to be done, even while we argue about what should be done.

From my perspective, even the controversial portions of our proposal are written with the desire to improve the quality and quantity of the resource and preserve as much general hunting opportunity as the resource can sustain without adverse consequences.

Whether or not we can make a compelling and convincing argument remains to be seen. But, that’s a different topic and one that will be ongoing.

Representative Hinkle and other opponents of our proposal are certainly allowed to have a voice in the public discussion and eventual decision making process of the FWP Commission season setting process.

What should not be accepted though is a short circuiting of that process just because of the existence of a controversial policy proposal.

 

[Straight Arrow]

If the logic of HB-139 were applied, why shouldn’t legislators pass specific regulation into law that would require FWP to keep their favorite rivers open if they see fit?

That is a good example of the potential for legislative overreach and fundamentally why HB 139 is seriously flawed.
Keep in mind that if the House F&G committee as a whole is concerned about hunting mule deer in the rut, the committee has the appropriate option of making recommendations to FWP and the F&G Commission. Passing a bill to usurp the authority and responsibility of the Commission is clearly and dastardly legislative overreach!

 

[Gerald Martin]

Please consider reaching out to the following committee members with thoughtful and respectful opposition to HB-139.


Committee members:

Ed Byrne [email protected] 406-871-6001
Jill Cohenour [email protected] 406-431-0912
Lee Deming [email protected] 406-671-2508
Neil Duram [email protected] 406-471-2356
Paul Fielder [email protected] 406-210-5943
Chip Fitzpatrick [email protected]
Tom France [email protected] 406-396-5085
Randyn Gregg [email protected] 406-290-4407
Jamie Isaly [email protected] 406-209-2568
Jonathan Karlen [email protected] 406-851-9226
Shannon Maness [email protected] 406-925-3604
Marilyn Marler [email protected] 406-544-7189
Tom Millett [email protected] 406-212-3613
Gary Parry [email protected] 406-749-0543
Tyson Running Wolf [email protected] 406-845-2115
Lukas Schubert [email protected] 406-609-6099
Joshua Seckinger [email protected] 406-599-6604
Tracy Sharp [email protected] 406-407-2197

 

[Gerald Martin]

Even though our general season setting proposal is a different topic and only tangentially related to HB-139 myself and other authors of the proposal welcome any opportunity for presentation, discussion and input from concerned groups and individuals as we work to finalize our proposal.

Here’s a link to Draft 1 and Draft 2 of our proposal, typos and all.

 

[cgasner1]

Sorry Gerald i threw the rough draft away but that bar napkin was illegible. Thanks for taking the time to write all this up and show people why this isn’t about our proposal. This is everyone’s fight to lose here if you’re fine with having the over reach then don’t write the emails. Gerald makes some great points to as why as a resident you should be upset with this. We are still unsure on when the vote will take place and it’s pretty cold across Montana be a great weekend to send some emails followed up with some text to friends to get them so the same. I’d also like to mention that I know of a couple other groups that didn’t make that list but voiced opposition to hb 139

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Can you clarify the limited entry for mule deer. The units that are currently LE make sense but is there consideration for adding some small amount of additional LE “rut” tags in the general areas? That seems like it could be a really good way to appease a lot of resident hunters and onboard them to your project.

I think the majority of the hunters want to do what is best for the resource but the idea of never getting to hunt mule deer in the rut again is a tough pill to swallow. As a resident I would happily give up rut hunting every year as long as I knew had a chance to draw a tag to do so every few years. Seems like it could be a win win.

 

[cgasner1]

Can you clarify the limited entry for mule deer. The units that are currently LE make sense but is there consideration for adding some small amount of additional LE “rut” tags in the general areas? That seems like it could be a really good way to appease a lot of resident hunters and onboard them to your project.

I think the majority of the hunters want to do what is best for the resource but the idea of never getting to hunt mule deer in the rut again is a tough pill to swallow. As a resident I would happily give up rut hunting every year as long as I knew had a chance to draw a tag to do so every few years. Seems like it could be a win win.

I think @Gerald Martin wanted to keep this one all about hb139 if you got some questions on that proposal should jump over to one of the threads on it