HB 372

     HB 372 proposed to amend Article IX, Section 7, of the Montana Constitution by replacing “The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state …” with “The citizens of Montana have the right to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest wild fish and wildlife, including the right to use present means and methods, … This right is subject to the necessary management statutes enacted by the legislature and regulatory authority delegated by the legislature to a designated public agency or commission.” I voted against this constitutional amendment because it would not have granted any additional privileges to Montanans that are not already in the constitution and would have simply created more work for lawyers to resolve the legal uncertainties created by the amendment.

     In 2004, Article IX, Section 7, of the Montana Constitution was amended to include the current language preserving our “harvest heritage.” It received overwhelming and bipartisan support in both the legislature and on the ballot. The “opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals” includes hunting, fishing, and trapping, and “shall forever be preserved” means that the “opportunity to harvest” will be protected by the law the same as any other privilege or right guaranteed in the constitution. HB 372 would have granted no additional privileges or rights to Montanans.

     If this bill had passed, lawyers would have been busy for many years litigating the meaning of some of the new constitutional language – something that has long been settled with the existing constitutional provision. In particular, the definitions of “present means and methods” and “necessary” provide the potential for a large number of lawsuits because their meanings will determine the relationship between the “right to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest” and the power of both the legislature and the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) to modify that right. For example, if FWP changes any “means and methods” for harvesting a particular species, there would likely be litigation over whether the change was “necessary” for the management of the species involved or whether it was even a “present” means or methods in the first place.