Montana HB 161-New bill to be heard

[ingomar]

Please review the text of the bill listed below primarily paying attention to the NEW SECTION at the beginning.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2019/billpdf/HB0161.pdf

New Section:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Requirements for decision making by director, department, and the commission. Except as provided in 87-1-217(5), 87-1-301(1)(h), 87-1-304(4), and in any matter concerning landowner tolerance and relations, the director, department, and commission may only use facts and science, when making decisions pursuant to authorities granted in Title 87 related to fish and wildlife. "The director, department, and commission may not use social science, human dimensions, or people's attitudes, opinions, or preferences in decision making processes related to fish and wildlife." (emphasis added)

This bill will be heard in the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks committee on Tuesday June 22 at 3:00 pm in room 172

Thoughts?

 

[bigsky2]

Can't believe no one has responded to this thread. I just got an e-mail from Montana Bowhunters Association asking for members to send in comments against the bill. Here is the summary from MBA:

HB 161, if passed, would add a new section to the Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Title 87 Fish and Wildlife


HB 161 is titled Requirements for decision making by director, department, and commission. The new section it would add to the existing MCA Title 87 reads as follows:

“Except as provided in 87-1-217(5), 87-1-301(1)(h), 87-1-304(4), and in any matter concerning landowner tolerance and relations, the director, department, and commission may only use facts and science when making decisions pursuant to authorities granted in Title 87 related to fish and wildlife. The director, department, and commission may not use social science, human dimensions, or people's attitudes, opinions, or preferences in decision making processes related to fish and wildlife.”

This bill proposes to take the public out of the FWP and FWP Commission decision making process. This means that we, the public, would not be allowed to have our comments heard or considered when the FWP and the FWP Commission are setting regulations or making other fish and wildlife management decisions.

But there are some exceptions to this bill and they are listed below:

87-1-217(5) Requires that county commissioners and tribal governments be consulted and coordinated with prior to state and federal policy decisions involving large predators and large game species.

87-1-301(1)(h) Requires that elk, deer, and antelope populations be maintained at or below objectives and shall consider landowner tolerance for those objectives.

87-1-304(4) Allows for the reopening of an area for fishing and or hunting if that area had been closed due a species depletion if there is consent from the majority of property owners.

It appears that if this bill were to be passed only landowners, county commissioners, and tribal governments would have a say in the FWP and FWP Commission decision making process which would include setting hunting and fishing regulations.

This is clearly a violation the Montana State Constitution Section 8. Right of Participation which states:

“The public has the right to expect governmental agencies to afford such reasonable opportunity for citizen participation in the operation of the agencies prior to the final decision as may be provided by law.”

 

[Sytes]

It was discussed here: https://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?286356-Montana-Legislature-2019

 

[MTGomer]

It sounds good for getting shoulder seasons under control, but if used literally would ruin all the trophy units.
How many bull elk harvest can the breaks, elkhorns, buffer area etc sustain? I don’t know, but it’s a hell of a lot more than the tags given that allow them to be producers of quality bulls.

 

[widnert]

There's always someone out there trying to take away something from the peasants.

 

[JEL]

This is up for hearing today in House Fish Wildlife and Parks at 3:00.

 

[scubohuntr]

It looks like a well-meaning effort to head off fiascos like the elimination of BC's grizzly season, which was based entirely on emotion and feelings, with no input from science. Unintended consequences? Loads. The people always lose in the long run when legislatures try to Band-Aid their earlier mistakes, or try to address a social problem with legislation. The problem under discussion in this case, I suspect, is the recent tendency for coastal snowflakes to try to eliminate hunting opportunities by carpet-bombing state or provincial legislatures with demands based on nothing other than their hatred of hunters and hunting. Kudos to the legislature for trying to proactively address this issue, but it's poorly worded and likely to run afoul of the Montana Constitution. I suspect it will be changed extensively in committee, if it gets that far. Worth keeping an eye on for sure.

 

[VikingsGuy]

This is clearly a violation the Montana State Constitution Section 8. Right of Participation which states:

“The public has the right to expect governmental agencies to afford such reasonable opportunity for citizen participation in the operation of the agencies prior to the final decision as may be provided by law.”[/I]

It may be good, it may be bad, but it is certainly not “clearly a violation” of your quoted text.

 

[mtsportsman]

This bill takes away the right to public comment. It violates our State's constitution guaranteeing the right to participate in government, as well as the Montana Environmental Policy Act and possibly the Montana Administrative Procedures Act.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It may be good, it may be bad, but it is certainly not “clearly a violation” of your quoted text.

I do have to agree with this. It is not a clear violation, but it does eliminate the ability of the agency to take in to consideration the public comment that it recieves. Simply put, you can still comment, but your comments don't matter.

To me, I think that's a reasonable case to be made that it does in fact violate our right to participate as well as possibly conflicting with several other MT statutes relative to public involvement in governmental processes. I'm no lawyer though, so I'd simply hire the best one I could to help make that case.

 

[VikingsGuy]

This bill takes away the right to public comment. It violates our State's constitution guaranteeing the right to participate in government, as well as the Montana Environmental Policy Act and possibly the Montana Administrative Procedures Act.

On it's face this is a huge overstatement. I am not an expert on MT laws so I may be mistaken, but in general here are a few thoughts that suggest it is not a simple as you declare. As written, it appears that public comment would be allowed, speech would occur, but the Dept would be limited to what portion of various inputs it uses in its discretion. Many laws provide boundaries for administrative decision making - remember, administrative law is merely a delegation of legislative authority and they can place constraints on those delegations. Also, absent some particular self limitation in the new statute, statutes can't violate prior statutes, as those earlier statutes are always subject to amendment (implicitly or explicitly).

In the end, the citizens' real redress is at the ballot box. Aside from this particular bill, in the big picture, too much public policy has been delegated to administrative agencies to be healthy - one of the least democratic portions of our government has far too much power in my view.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I do have to agree with this. It is not a clear violation, but it does eliminate the ability of the agency to take in to consideration the public comment that it recieves. Simply put, you can still comment, but your comments don't matter.

To me, I think that's a reasonable case to be made that it does in fact violate our right to participate as well as possibly conflicting with several other MT statutes relative to public involvement in governmental processes. I'm no lawyer though, so I'd simply hire the best one I could to help make that case.

There is certainly an angle for a sympathetic court to find a violation.