Game definition bill fails on third House vote

Senate Bill 334, sponsored by Sen. Jennifer Fielder, R-Thompson Falls, passed in the House on Feb. 25 by 30-20.

The bill would expand the definition of “game animals,” creating a new category for big-game animals and placing it under the broader game animal definition, along with upland game birds, migratory game birds and fur-bearing animals.

The definition of “predatory animals” also would be expanded to include badgers, raccoons and red foxes. Defining them as such would allow farmers and ranchers to kill those animals to protect their livestock, prompting concerns from conservation groups that it would open to the door to unfettered slaughter.

During a March 17 hearing before the Senate Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee, Fielder said the bill would also allow trappers to sell pelts from badgers, raccoons and red foxes, which is prohibited under current statute.

Rep. Bob Brown, R-Thompson Falls, who carried SB 334 in the House, said revisions were overdue to clarify conflicting rules on how the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks regulates game.

“This will not change which animals can be harvested, or by what means, but what it will do is provide some clarity and consistency,” Brown said.

Opponents conceded that the exact impacts of the 37-page bill were difficult to know, but the changes offered in the bill were not sanctioned by FWP.

“Fish, Wildlife and Parks was never involved in the writing of this bill or the crafting of this bill,” Rep. Jean Price, D-Great Falls, said. “The department has found a number of unintended consequences and will likely continue to find them.”

Rep. Kelly Flynn, R-Townsend, responded that FWP had been asked to bring amendments to address their concerns and had done so.

Rep. Ed Lieser, D-Whitefish, opposed grouping fur-bearers under game animals, which he said could carry broad implications given Article IX of the state Constitution, which in part states that “the opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall be forever preserved to the citizens of the state.”

“That is a very significant change that we need to consider,” Lieser said.

Lieser was among several opponents to the bill who said its impacts to state game management were too unclear to support.

“That’s why we have three pages of this bill stricken,” Brown responded.

He cited amendments brought by the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee that included striking proposed language to restrict some of FWP’s management actions, including game checks and population estimates of non-big game animals.

Brown added that the state currently is unable to seek restitution and fines for poachers who kill animals not currently listed as “game animals.” The broadened definition would change that, he said.

A bill that would change the legal definitions for game animals and predatory animals failed to pass the House on a third reading April 11 by 47-49

Senate Bill 334, sponsored by Sen. Jennifer Fielder, R-Thompson Falls, passed in the House on Feb. 25 by 30-20.

The bill would expand the definition of “game animals,” creating a new category for big-game animals and placing it under the broader game animal definition, along with upland game birds, migratory game birds and fur-bearing animals.

The definition of “predatory animals” also would be expanded to include badgers, raccoons and red foxes. Defining them as such would allow farmers and ranchers to kill those animals to protect their livestock, prompting concerns from conservation groups that it would open to the door to unfettered slaughter.

During a March 17 hearing before the Senate Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee, Fielder said the bill would also allow trappers to sell pelts from badgers, raccoons and red foxes, which is prohibited under current statute.

Rep. Bob Brown, R-Thompson Falls, who carried SB 334 in the House, said revisions were overdue to clarify conflicting rules on how the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks regulates game.

“This will not change which animals can be harvested, or by what means, but what it will do is provide some clarity and consistency,” Brown said.

Opponents conceded that the exact impacts of the 37-page bill were difficult to know, but the changes offered in the bill were not sanctioned by FWP.

“Fish, Wildlife and Parks was never involved in the writing of this bill or the crafting of this bill,” Rep. Jean Price, D-Great Falls, said. “The department has found a number of unintended consequences and will likely continue to find them.”

Rep. Kelly Flynn, R-Townsend, responded that FWP had been asked to bring amendments to address their concerns and had done so.

Rep. Ed Lieser, D-Whitefish, opposed grouping fur-bearers under game animals, which he said could carry broad implications given Article IX of the state Constitution, which in part states that “the opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall be forever preserved to the citizens of the state.”

“That is a very significant change that we need to consider,” Lieser said.

Lieser was among several opponents to the bill who said its impacts to state game management were too unclear to support.

“That’s why we have three pages of this bill stricken,” Brown responded.

He cited amendments brought by the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee that included striking proposed language to restrict some of FWP’s management actions, including game checks and population estimates of non-big game animals.

Brown added that the state currently is unable to seek restitution and fines for poachers who kill animals not currently listed as “game animals.” The broadened definition would change that, he said.