Montana group seeks to protect hunting, fishing rights

Backers of a Montana constitutional amendment protecting the ability of state citizens to hunt and fish consider it a necessary pre-emptive strike against future threats to something that is a “cherished way of life” in the state.

That’s the message in written arguments in favor of Constitutional Amendment 41 that were submitted for the Voter Information Pamphlet that summarizes the pros and cons of various measures on the November ballot.

The opposing side offered its own view that the measure, proposed by the Legislature, is a solution in search of a problem.

“There is no threat of banning hunting or fishing in this state,” they wrote in their arguments given to the secretary of state’s office.

The contrasting views offer the first glimpse of the likely debate over the first attempt in Montana to create a constitutional right to hunt and fish.

CA-41 would add this to the constitution: “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 and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights.”

Rep. Joe Balyeat, R-Bozeman; Sen. Duane Grimes, R-Clancy; and Gary Marbut, head of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, prepared the arguments in favor of the measure. Sen. John Cobb, R-Augusta, wrote against its passage.

The proponents said hunting and fishing opportunities in other states are being eroded by efforts of “anti-hunting, anti-fishing, animal rights extremists” and those challenges eventually will reach Montana.

“We must give future generations legal ammunition now to defend our heritage against outside attacks,” they said.

CA-41 needs to be adopted now while support can still be found among the large numbers of Montanans still hunt and fish, the advocates said. “We must pass CA-41 while we still have the political will to do so.”

Cobb’s response suggested the backers were being unnecessarily paranoid and pessimistic.

“This proposed amendment implies the present majority will lose our heritage and that it needs protecting now against an eventuality of a future majority of anti-hunters,” he wrote. “This proposal represents a self-defeating attitude by a majority fearing they will become a minority without any other constitutional recourse.”

The initiative, which supporters acknowledge does not prevent state regulation of hunting and fishing, won’t stop a majority objecting to those activities from someday using that government power to “regulate hunting and fishing to death,” Cobb said.