MT Fielder's Constitutional Referendum

[katqanna]

Fielder has a draft LC2314, Constitutional referendum to safeguard right to hunt, fish, and trap wildlife.

Someone sent me the current draft language to get out in the newsletter (which I am working on) and warn the public. This is heinous.

There is quite a bit of red on this page.

The language I am seeing would seriously set the stage for privatization, Ranching for Wildlife and introductions of "huntable" species that could wreak havoc on Montana's ecosystem, all under the guise of "hunting/fishing rights".

It opens with demanding a "right", not the "opportunity" as our Constitution currently states, as though our State serves to provide the fish and wildlife for harvesting like some commercial market, "essential to pursuing life's basic necessities."

One of the changes to our Constitution: "(2) The opportunity to harvest (strike current "wild fish and wild game animals") fish and wildlife 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."

By removing "wild fish and wild game animals" opens the door for invasive and exotic species introductions. Do you want Montana turned into Texas with all it's exotic "huntable" game farms? Just yesterday a science article came up on my feed - Invasive Wild Pigs Leave a Swath of Destruction Across U.S. – And They Keep Spreading! I was at the Board of Livestock meeting where a bill was proposed, which thankfully passed in 2015, to restrict feral swine in Montana. Just this change alone would be a privatization nightmare in the making.

 

[onpoint]

While I will not yet get my undies in too tight of a knot regarding Ms. Fielder's (and her behind the scenes buddies) next apparent great idea, this is indicative of the MT GOP party's pandering to the simple minded "constitutional right(s)" crowd. To an alarming extent - it works for them. They seem to keep getting elected.

 

[katqanna]

The draft language is officially out

There is more to this Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, where this originated from, than meets the eye. Their Right to hunt page

 

[Ben Lamb]

The language is problematic according to the attorney's we've been talking too. It would set up FWP to be in constant litigation as to "what is scientific management." Wolf trapping, grizzly bear hunting, etc would all be subject to lawsuit by HSUS, etc. Not issuing tags based on elk over-population, etc, would all be easier to sue on by the UPOM crowd.

Enforcement has issues with the language, as it could connote a constitutional right to hunt and fish, regardless of poaching laws, loss of privileges under the lacy act, etc.

It would also tie the hands of the legislature to do even basic maintenance of statute and programs as they would likely not meet the threshold of the amendment and section C would basically mean that we manage wildlife for landowner tolerance as we fight continually against efforts to take FWP's funding for crop damage, etc.

While the intention is good, the bill is bad. It needs more work.

 

[katqanna]

Fielder's SB 236 hearing live now

Link

 

[teamhoyt]

Fielder's SB 236 hearing live now

Link

How did this turn out?

 

[katqanna]

No executive action was taken today. The hearing ran about 2 1/2 hours. The proponents were Toby Walrath MTA, Keith Kubista MTSFW, Paul Fielder, Scott Cargill MT Houndsmen, Garret Bacon (didn't hear the group, my phone rang), Bob Gilbert Walleyes Unlimited, Paul Rossig?, Warren Illi for the Flathead Walleyes Unlimited, ? for SCI (another phone ring), Jim Brown Mt Woolgrowers Assoc., Mac Minard MOGA.

Most were bringing up I 177 and Humane Society and other groups trying to take down hunting altogether, with a national HS quote of a game plan on how to do this.

The opponents were Attorney Becky Dockter FWP, Mark Lambrecht RMEF, Chris Smith former FWP Deputy Director currently with Wildlife Management Institute, Marc Cooke for Wolves of the Rockies and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Dave Chadwick MWF, Wes Miles Trap Free Montana, Dennis Lopach MT for Trapping Reform, Brian Oz MT Trout Unlimited, Claudia Narcisco Sierra Club, Robin Cunningham FOAM, Connie Poten, Kurt Alt WSF, Jeff Herbert MSA, Sam Milodragovich Skyline Sportsmen, Cindy McIlvy ?(another phone ring - I know I should have turned the damn thing off before), Joelle Selk MBA, Amy Seaman MT Audubon, Mike Koeppen.

Some of the hunter/angler groups added that the bill in this form was not acceptable, some added that this should be discussed with various stakeholders.

Sen. Phillips grilled Fielder about Federal conflicts, Sen. Vincent made me laugh, he really does not like Fielders pink bill, which was heard before this bill. He said that if this passed, she may have killed her own bill as the pink could not pass the scientific requirement (I have stated that to several other hunters - I object to the pink bill as well). Sen. Smith asked why there was no legal note with this bill, Fielder replied she didn't think it needed it. Smith then asked Joe Kolman (Legislative Services) the requirements for legal notes. I need to look into that. A number of the committee asked very detailed questions of Becky Dockter, how this will hinder FWP. Hinkle, who was chairing this, seemed to be curious about one thing. He called Lambrecht up, asked if RMEF had consulted with FWP on this bill. He replied, yes. Then he asked who in FWP. He replied, Volesky.

Fielder was asked, I can't remember by who, if she has consulted FWP legal on this. She said yes. Dockter was called back up, asked the nature of the discussion. Dockter said she had not been given or shown the text of the bill, that they only had a general discussion.

The committee wanted additional information. Fielder is concerned with the timing, so she doesn't miss the transmittal date. She offered to meet with any of the groups that wanted to amend this bill, but added a qualifier to what she would allow to be changed.

 

[What Map]

Kat, Thanks for taking the time to follow the hearing and giving us a summary.
It will be interesting to see how amendments go.
I thinks lots of people are watching closely.

 

[Big Fin]

There is plenty of "details behind the scenes" related to this amendment. The amendment had the opportunity to actually do some good things, IF, big if, the sponsor was willing to listen to legal experts who have been down this path before. But, since the sponsor seems to operate under the assumption that everyone else is less informed, none of the legal concerns were addressed and none of the other ideas were implemented.

Assurances were provided that the Attorney General and FWP Legal Staff would be brought into the discussion, none of which happened. Expert legal advice from other sources was provided, none of which was listened to.

The votes are not there and the sponsor knows it. Now, the sponsor offers that "some items" are open to amendment, in order to get more support and hopefully get the bill out of the Committee. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening when the non-attorney sponsor knows everything and the rest of the world is treated as clueless and not worthy of trust or consideration.

When your only legal advice for a bill comes from the lobbyist of the Wool Growers Association and another Senator who was once a local judge, both of whom may very well be good guys, the depth of legal consideration of the outcomes, intended or unintended, is likely to be rather shallow. Just a fact of how complicated legal issues get when you start down the path of amending a State Constitution and how that changes the hierarchy of laws, definitions under law, and prior precedents that were used under old Constitutional language.

But, given the world's finest brain trust resides among a few select residents of Sanders County, Montana, maybe those other legal opinions are not worthy (sarcasm in full force here).

 

[tjones]

Most were bringing up I 177 and Humane Society and other groups trying to take down hunting altogether, with a national HS quote of a game plan on how to do this.

.

How the hell could they link I 177 to taking down hunting?

 

[MTGomer]

How the hell could they link I 177 to taking down hunting?

Ummmm.... because that is the goal of the people pushing it?

You don't start with telling people they can't kill a deer for the freezer. You start with the 'common sense' stuff first. Next is hunting lions with dogs.
Then its hunting lions at all.
Then bears.
Then....

 

[Gerald Martin]

But, given the world's finest brain trust resides among a few select residents of Sanders County, Montana, maybe those other legal opinions are not worthy (sarcasm in full force here).

Hey! I resemble that! Our kids are all above average as well. Whatever else comes out of Sanders Co. this year you can at least be grateful for how good you look in pink!

 

[tjones]

Ummmm.... because that is the goal of the people pushing it?

You don't start with telling people they can't kill a deer for the freezer. You start with the 'common sense' stuff first. Next is hunting lions with dogs.
Then its hunting lions at all.
Then bears.
Then....

Double down on the tinfoil.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The opponents were Attorney Becky Dockter FWP, Mark Lambrecht RMEF, Chris Smith former FWP Deputy Director currently with Wildlife Management Institute, Marc Cooke for Wolves of the Rockies and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Dave Chadwick MWF, Wes Miles Trap Free Montana, Dennis Lopach MT for Trapping Reform, Brian Oz MT Trout Unlimited, Claudia Narcisco Sierra Club, Robin Cunningham FOAM, Connie Poten, Kurt Alt WSF, Jeff Herbert MSA, Sam Milodragovich Skyline Sportsmen, Cindy McIlvy ?(another phone ring - I know I should have turned the damn thing off before), Joelle Selk MBA, Amy Seaman MT Audubon, Mike Koeppen.

If this bill doesn't pass, it proves that FWP is anti-hunting and those green decoy groups are a front for PETA type wolf huggers... you heard it from me, first. Can't wait to see the recruitment propaganda from SFW.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Double down on the tinfoil.

Tony, I have no doubt that the people who pushed I-77 would be happy to end all hunting, but especially those listed by MTGomer.

 

[katqanna]

They stated a position statement from the US Humane Society is against hunting altogether, that their game plan was to first attack aspects less socially acceptable, like trapping, mountain lion hunting, spring bear hunting, etc. Get that done in CA first, then start going after hunting in general, then do the same state by state.

I don't know if this is correct or not, I will look into it and see if there is a published game plan at Humane Society. At any rate, the proponents said they wanted to make sure trapping was protected constitutionally. FWP stated they believed it already was.

At any rate, what Fielder has done goes way beyond adding trapping in with hunting and fishing to secure it, she has created a clusterf*ck that would basically destroy FWP and Commission's ability to manage, Enforcement from being able to do their job and open the State up to massive litigation.

 

[Nameless Range]

I know plenty of people who supported I-177 who are pro-hunting, but I fully agree with MTGomer. It was one step in a series of steps to chip away at trapping/hunting. It's a "soften them up" tactic. Don't we have examples of this occurring in other states? Maybe I'm wrong.

That's not to say this bill as written isn't a terrible idea.

 

[tjones]

Tony, I have no doubt that the people who pushed I-77 would be happy to end all hunting, but especially those listed by MTGomer.

Wanting and getting it done are two completely different things. There were plenty of bird hunters that supported I177.

Extreme spins from both sides don't help.


Back on topic.

 

[BackcountryMT]

This bill is completely linked to I 177. The fish and game attorney could only state that see thinks hunting writes are protected in MT. But could give no difinative wording. That it would have to end up with an initiative passing. And then a court battle. MT sportsman spent ove $500,000 fighting I 177. That money would have went a long way in conservation projects instead of fighting to protect a right. This legislation may not be perfect. But something needs to be done in MT to keep sportsman from being under attack from Ballot Biology. This fish and game is dead scared of a bill that says they need to manage by biology. I believe this will be amended to fix some legal concerns. There sure are a lot of sportsman that like to talk but do nothing. I an not sure were anyone can read exotics into this bill not one of the attorneys could even do that.

 

[katqanna]

A number of the proponents accused other hunting/angling groups of basically being green decoys, without using that phrase, allied with the anti-hunting Humane Society efforts.

It did not go unnoticed by all the opponents. So when each one made their statements, they also included a rebuttal, whether they opposed I 177, contributed money to it's efforts or whether their group had hunters/anglers and was pro hunting.