SB 63 - Revise law related to the use of motion-tracking devices while hunting

[bigsky2]

The hearing for SB 63 is tomorrow at 3:00 in the Senate Fish & Game committee. If you think using thermals and drones to locate animals isn’t fair chase, I encourage you to testify in support of the bill, and send a message to the committee. In my opinion, the bill falls short, and I plan to say so in my testimony. However, it is an improvement from the current regulations.

Here’s the link to the committee where you can sign up to testify or comment.

Committee Explorer

Explore, track, and stay informed on committee activity in Montana with the Montana Legislature Committee Explorer application. Access detailed information, monitor committee progress, and engage with the legislative process easily from your desktop or mobile device.

committees.legmt.gov

Here’s a link to the bill.

Bill Explorer

Explore, track, and stay informed on legislative bills in Montana with the Montana Legislature Bill Explorer application. Access detailed information, monitor bill progress, and engage with the legislative process easily from your desktop or mobile device.

bills.legmt.gov

 

[rogerthat]

This one can be a little confusing so just to clarify thermal imagers are considered motion tracking devices by commission rule. The reason and need for this law is that currently use of these devices prior to daylight big game hunting is not able to be charged and prosecuted as hunting under this statute. This bill langauge came out of FWP so if your for making changes that help FWP with enforcement on this one than I encourage you to support it.

I agree with @bigsky2 that the calendar day prohibition timeframe doesn’t quite go far enough and would like to see a 24 hour or even better a 48 hour timeframe. This will not affect your ability to predator hunt with these devices as long as you abide by the timeframes before big game hunting.

 

[Sytes]

What is this improving?

Outside of a suppressor/silencer (ATF approved) - what are they referring to in (c)? Why add section (c)?

(c) while hunting, use any device or mechanism devised to silence, muffle, or minimize the report of any firearm, whether the device or mechanism is operated from or attached to any firearm. This subsection (1)(c) does not prohibit the use of a device or mechanism registered with the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives to silence, muffle, or minimize the report of a firearm when hunting wildlife.

This is as it currently stands. The same calendar day or as worded currently, "...during the same day". Nothing changed within this writing or am I missing something? An airplane, helo pilot, or drone (UAV) user may not use information gathered the same calendar day to hunt or report to others the location to hunt - during the same day. Same meaning as "Calendar day". Something I am not understanding?

(d) while hunting or within the same calendar day that a person intends to hunt or has hunted, use any electronic motion-tracking device or mechanism, as defined by commission rule, that is designed to track the motion of a game animal and relay information on the animal's movement to the hunter relays information 25 26 27 on the movement of any game animal, fur-bearing animal, upland game bird, or migratory game bird to the hunter. A person may not communicate the location of any game animal, fur-bearing animal, upland game bird, or migratory game bird to another person as an aid to hunting within the same calendar day of using an electronic motion-tracking device or mechanism to locate the animal or bird.

 

[BuzzH]

Does anyone actually hunt anymore?

Its just plain sad we even need to be talking legislating these kinds of things.

We're our own worst enemies.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm so far behind the times I don't even own a 6.5 CM or a trail camera.

Call me a dinosaur.

 

[Flynarrow]

Always easier and/or faster and/or further.

 

[B&CTom]

Reviewing the existing law, there is no proposed change to MCA 87-6-401 Section 1, subsection C. The proposed change surrounds subsection D, which appears to be an attempt to establish restrictions for using electronic tracking equipment during a calendar day to give a hunter an advantage, and to prevent a person from sharing the information with another for use to their advantage. It adds fur-bearing animals, game birds, and migratory birds as protected from such disadvantage as well. The point apparently being to prevent an unfair advantage by use of available technology. I also think a specific time limit (i.e. 24 hours, or 48 hours) is much more defined, restrictive and enforceable than "calendar day"

 

[Sytes]

The proposed change surrounds subsection D, which appears to be an attempt to establish restrictions for using electronic tracking equipment during a calendar day

That is what I don't understand @bigsky2 referenced UAVs. How is calendar day any different than "within the same day". Same day is the same as calendar day. I have a feeling this is more to target remote game cameras than aerial human and UAV's.

 

[B&CTom]

I think you're spot on about the remote game cameras than can transmit a real-time image

 

[Wildabeest]

I think you're spot on about the remote game cameras than can transmit a real-time image

That’s already forbidden during hunting season in MT. I’ve not read the proposed bill, but perhaps it’s extending that to non-transmitting cameras which are currently allowed during season?

 

[rogerthat]

That’s already forbidden during hunting season in MT. I’ve not read the proposed bill, but perhaps it’s extending that to non-transmitting cameras which are currently allowed during season?

Not to my knowledge. This is directed at thermal imaging device use prior to hunting. I had several conversations with the fwp director temple about the issue when this was being looked into and discussed internally. I would like to think I have had some part in this getting to this point as I have been making phone calls and writing emails since 2018 on it. Fwp first looked to the commission to address but statutorily they didn’t have authority. Cell cams are only a motion tracking device if left to transmit in real time. Most of them can be set with a delay. Than the information is not real time and they are not a motion tracking device. They are their own can of worms.

Edit: so yes this would address cell cams left in real time mode as well

 

[Sytes]

That makes much more sense. I was trying to understand what @bigsky2 was referencing towards UAVs (drones). I believe he was mistaken. Nothing to do with drones.

I'd add: anything referencing 24 or 48 hours will hit directly into MOGA and high money boys with aerial coverage and setting for client hunt areas the next day. Waiting 24 or 48 hours will be on deaf ears. I think they have worded game camera delayed reporting to reflect current settings with aerial (and drone) scouting for next day activity. i.e. within the same calendar day.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I'm so far behind the times I don't even own a 6.5 CM or a trail camera.

Call me a dinosaur.

Yeah, me too. I'm thinking about getting a scope and some binoculars ... but they're so darn expensive!

I'm wondering if the Black Gold archery sight will fit my bow.

 

[rogerthat]

Does anyone actually hunt anymore?

Its just plain sad we even need to be talking legislating these kinds of things.

We're our own worst enemies.

I agree Buzz. Absolutely ridiculous something like this needs to be legislated…on a number of different levels. Really showed me how important the framework of the language that is put into state law really is regarding flexibility. I think this is a simple fix if under the purvey of the commission but unfortunately it isn’t. I just hope the nuance and semantics of this one don’t get used against it to kill it.

 

[Wildabeest]

Not to my knowledge. This is directed at thermal imaging device use prior to hunting. I had several conversations with the fwp director temple about the issue when this was being looked into and discussed internally. I would like to think I have had some part in this getting to this point as I have been making phone calls and writing emails since 2018 on it. Fwp first looked to the commission to address but statutorily they didn’t have authority. Cell cams are only a motion tracking device if left to transmit in real time. Most of them can be set with a delay. Than the information is not real time and they are not a motion tracking device. They are their own can of worms.

Edit: so yes this would address cell cams left in real time mode as well

If I recall the regulation language correctly, it said something to the effect of “capable of transmitting in real-time” and took that to mean it didn’t matter if they were set to transmit in real time or not. If they had that capability they were not allowed to be used during season. It’s been awhile since I checked though.

 

[rogerthat]

Environmental Quality Council

Environmental Quality Council (I) - Video

sg001-harmony.sliq.net

September meeting of the EQC. 9:28:15 confirms the bill was to address thermal imaging devices.

Good discussion on it ensues at 9:36:50 as well

 

[bigsky2]

That makes much more sense. I was trying to understand what @bigsky2 was referencing towards UAVs (drones). I believe he was mistaken. Nothing to do with drones.

I'd add: anything referencing 24 or 48 hours will hit directly into MOGA and high money boys with aerial coverage and setting for client hunt areas the next day. Waiting 24 or 48 hours will be on deaf ears. I think they have worded game camera delayed reporting to reflect current settings with aerial (and drone) scouting for next day activity. i.e. within the same calendar day.

Not mistaken, drones unfortunately fall under both aircraft and motion tracking devices. SB 63 is the legislation mentioned in the article.

Drone use to recover hunter-killed or wounded animals in Montana faces scrutiny

Officials with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks say it's legal to use a drone to locate wounded or dead game animals, but there are some caveats.

helenair.com

Here’s a couple of screenshots from the article in case there’s a paywall.





It’s really inconvenient that thermals, drones, and cell cams are all considered motion tracking devices. I hope this bill passes just to get some kind of restriction on their use. Then I’d like to see the commission fix the regs so they are all handled as different technologies. It’s not very efficient to put a blanket regulation on the three technologies when they are all different.

 

[rogerthat]

Not mistaken, drones unfortunately fall under both aircraft and motion tracking devices. SB 63 is the legislation mentioned in the article.

Drone use to recover hunter-killed or wounded animals in Montana faces scrutiny

Officials with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks say it's legal to use a drone to locate wounded or dead game animals, but there are some caveats.

helenair.com

Here’s a couple of screenshots from the article in case there’s a paywall.

View attachment 357622

View attachment 357623

It’s really inconvenient that thermals, drones, and cell cams are all considered motion tracking devices. I hope this bill passes just to get some kind of restriction on their use. Then I’d like to see the commission fix the regs so they are all handled as different technologies. It’s not very efficient to put a blanket regulation on the three technologies when they are all different.

To be clear wouldn’t the drone have to have some additional device attached to it that allows motion tracking? A drone with no camera or thermal imaging device would not be a motion tracking device since it would not be relaying real time information to you. That’s my take on it anyway. It’s actually the thermal imager or camera that make it a motion tracking device