MT Hunter Harassment Law

[sra61]

Just for everyone's information this is how the Hunter Harassment Law reads:


Hunter Harassment Statutes
Montana

(Mont. Code. Ann. § 87-3-141 (1995))
MONTANA CODE ANNOTATED
TITLE 87. FISH AND WILDLIFE
CHAPTER 3. RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS
PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
87-3-141. Definitions

As used in 87-3-141 through 87-3-144, the following definitions apply:

(1) "Taking" means the pursuit, hunting, trapping, shooting, or killing of a wild animal on land upon which the affected person has the right or privilege to pursue, hunt, trap, shoot, or kill the wild animal.

(2) "Wild animal" means any game animal, fur-bearing animal, or predatory animal, as defined in 87-2-101.

History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 492, L. 1987.
87-3-142. Harassment prohibited

(1) No person may intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of a wild animal by another.

(2) No person may, with intent to prevent or hinder its lawful taking, disturb a wild animal or engage in an activity or place in its way any object or substance that will tend to disturb or otherwise affect the behavior of a wild animal.

(3) No person may disturb an individual engaged in the lawful taking of a wild animal with intent to dissuade the individual or otherwise prevent the taking of the animal.

(4) Nothing in this section prohibits a landowner or lessee from taking reasonable measures to prevent imminent danger to domestic livestock and equipment.

History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 492, L. 1987.
87-3-143. Penalty.

A person convicted of a violation of 87-3-142 is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine not to exceed $500 or imprisonment not to exceed 30 days, or both. A person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of 87-3-142 is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not to exceed 1 year, or both.

History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 492, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 589, L. 1993.
87-3-144. Injunction.

A court of general jurisdiction may enjoin conduct in violation of 87-3-142 upon petition by a person affected or who reasonably may be affected by such conduct and upon a showing that such conduct is threatened or that it has occurred on a particular premises in the past and that it is not unreasonable to expect that under similar circumstances it will be repeated.

History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 492, L. 1987.

 

[Ten Bears]

I think we've got one of them laws in Idaho too.

 

[Horn Seeker]

Sounds like just about anything a Buffalo Hippie could do would be completely illegal....Good.

 

[MattK]

I know with last buffalo hunt, they put themselves into dangerous situations (either too close to the buffalo or in the path of the bullet). I think a lot more would have happened last time if it weren't for the wardens being on the scene. I'm hoping there is a buffalo hunt and I also hope a hunter doesn't do something stupid. The activists are hoping for the publicity a bad hunter would bring.

 

[danr55]

Would it be considered stupid to send a round toward the buff and scare them toward the protesters?

 

[MattK]

It would only be stupid if the buffalo didn't run over an activist. It would be a wasted shot then.

 

[ELKCHSR]

I guess on the last Buffalo hunt in Montana, they (enviros) chased the hunters around with bull horns, stood in the way of shots, even hit a hunter with a ski pole and from all accounts, nothing was done to the perpetrators.
I wonder if it will be different with this coward Governer?

 

[ringer]

Ever notice that the radical huggers only do the crazy stuff in the dark of night or when the cameras are rolling? Wonder why I never run into them back in the woods where no one else is around?

 

[MattK]

Ringer- Publicity is what they thrive on. They don't want to stop one hunter, they wish to stop all hunters. If there is no camera rolling, they aren't accomplishing their objective

 

[ringer]

Matt-I understand and also know they might be at risk in those situations. Had a mountain biker burn down 7 new homes to "protect" his riding area a couple years ago. These people have a fringe element that can be dangerous as well as obnoxious but they sure don't have the balls to go one on one and deep. Yeah, they are good at playing to a camera. Hope to meet one out there someday.

 

[ELKCHSR]

I think any of these radical leftist groups should be treated as any other terrorist organization...
If they can't get their agenda's passed the right way, then they should be in jail or hanging on the end of a noose...

 

[MattK]

Elkchsr- A lot of what these activists do is correct. A lot is done through political or legal (law suits) means. A lot also use civil disobedience. It gets recognized quickly by the media and does turn some heads to gain attention. I don't personally condone anything illegal. On the other hand, they have as many rights as I do and should be able to voice their opinion. If we take that right from them, we take it from ourselves.

 

[ELKCHSR]

And Mat....
A lot of it is these people are being blatent "Terrorists" and need to be dealt with as terrorists need to be dealt with.
Civil is civil and a lot of what is done is not civil.
Nails in trees
Harrasing hunters
Trashing Buisness's
Stopping some thing by civil disobienience when it has already been thru the permit process and they waited until the last minute to put in their points.
Etc...Etc...Etc....
The list just keeps on going and going....

 

[MattK]

Elkchsr- I understand that some acts these people take are unfounded and unfortunate things happen to good people with the methods activists use. However, their right to protest in non-violent ways should not be diminished. You talk as though someone using a blowhorn to scare bison back into the park is equal to that of an airliner smashing into the world trade center. I get as frustrated as the next guy with the animal rights activists but I also can use a little common sense in my judgment of these people. I hope they can use the same judgement when it comes to looking at my views.

 

[ELKCHSR]

There are right way's and wrong way's to do things, (left in a black and white context with out all the gray areas a lot of individuals like to drag into the mix), make it very simple to know what is against the law and what is not.
I have seen first hand of business’s for example in Washington State that have been vandalized, windows smashed out, slogans and graffiti splashed on their store fronts and vehicles, tires slashed, nails pounded in trees in an effort to damage others property, places broken into and all the animals removed and turned loose, only to die a horrible death in a foriegn place they have not learned to survive in... all in the name of saving the world....
This is terrorism, maybe not on the level of crashing planes into buildings, but illegal non-the less.
Right is right and wrong is wrong, and we can justify any thing we want to in our own minds to justify our own ending.
I also think that you are reading more into this two-dimensional dialog than I am posting. But I can't fix that nor can I help when you can't experience any emotion and have to add your own.

"I hope they can use the same judgment when it comes to looking at my views."

The problem with this, is that the other side is unbending in their pursuits of what they want, it is all or nothing in their book and they will give no quarter to justify what they perceive as right. There is no common sense in what they do. It all hinges on hatred and they think any thing they do, no matter what, is all right.