OP ED: HB 72
 | Author:
Julie Dooling, House District 70 Representative
MT State Representative |
OP ED: HB 72
Julie Dooling, House District 70 Representative
On April 3rd, we had an all-day Floor session in the House. This was due in part to the fact that we needed to move House Bills passed out of committee, to the Floor, and then onto the Senate, to meet our calendar deadlines.
Our first board that day was the 4 Constitutional Amendments. Representative Fielder’s HB 372, “Establish Right to Hunt in the Constitution”, was the first one on the board.
I voted NO on HB 372 and YES on the others. While some may interpret my NO vote as that I am against hunting, fishing and trapping, that assumption is very wrong.
I grew up in a low to moderate income family, as was most of my blue-collar extended family. My grandpa, dad, uncles, and many cousins hunted yearly for deer, elk and the occasional moose or bear, when someone was lucky enough to draw a tag. We all went camping every summer, and we fished in the creeks and rivers, and ate what we caught.
Hunting and fishing were not a recreation, it was a necessity, as it put food on the table when we couldn’t afford meat at the grocery store. It has been a part of my life since a very young age.
I had issues with the bill as originally drafted, as did a majority of the farm/ranch groups, so a last-minute amendment was added in the House Judiciary Committee, that states “ …which does not create or imply that any right of public trespass on private property or diminish in any way vested private property rights and does not affect rights to divert, appropriate, and use water or establish a minimum amount of water in any water body.”
While the Amendment made the bill a bit more palatable, I still had/have a lot of concerns. I don’t think that we are looking at the big picture. While I understand that the objective of this Constitutional Amendment is to prevent any anti-hunting, anti-fishing, anti-trapping groups from coming in and shutting down these activities in Montana, I’m not sure that this is going to do the job without creating “unintended consequences” in the future.
Should the Constitutional Amendment pass by voter approval, these will be state-based rights and could possibly give the environmental groups another avenue and ammunition to argue for instream flows for fishing or wildlife. For example, if we establish the constitutional right to hunt, fish and trap, the public then has a RIGHT to expect to fish – and therefore the waterway HAS to have a certain level of water to produce those fish, be it in the stream, lake or reservoir.
This is the argument many courts have used to grant the Native Americans instream flow rights with a time immemorial priority date. While our farmers and ranchers have water rights to irrigate, whose right becomes superior? There are many that argue farming and ranching has a negative impact on our land. Does the fisherman, hunter or trapper in the Upper Gallatin or Upper Beaverhead Rivers have a superior right to practice their “hobby” over a farmer or rancher’s right to make a living and provide food for the public?
While the Constitutional Amendment states that “…does not affect rights to divert, appropriate, and use water or establish a minimum amount of water in any water body.”, we cannot guarantee that our Montana Supreme Court or US Supreme Court will interpret this in the same manner at any point of time in the future, and not strike out pieces and portions it does not like.
The environmental groups seem to have an unlimited supply of money and attorneys to file cases and it will be heard and decided in court. Another thing to consider is access for hunting, fishing and trapping and corner jumping. We have been able to prevent corner-jumping from becoming legal, but the amendment does not address it specifically. Do we want liberal courts making these decisions?
I DO think that we need to protect our Montana Heritage of Hunting, Fishing and Trapping but I’m not convinced that this Constitutional Amendment is a one-size fits all solution to the issues at hand.
Our farmers and ranchers need to be afforded those same protections as well. It is my sincere hope that a well thought out approach, to protect private property rights, irrigation/water rights, and access issues will be brought forward that can be supported by the majority of the House and Senate and not just one party or the other.
This needs to be a Montana decision.
Article Images
Click on Image Thumbnail(s) to view fullsize image
PhotoCredit: Julie Dooling
Image 1 Caption: Julie Dooling headshot
