Montana - Ballot Initiative would allow Montana Landowners to Hunt Without Permits

[silencedogood]

Tha

Thank you for the reply. I appreciate that. Talked with my county's prosecutor that has experience in wildlife law/regulation enforcement. very insightful, i would suggest the same for everyone reading. This initiative will affect nowhere else except for us poor souls within rez boundaries as laws/regulations have are already in place for private land owners outside the exterior of reservation boundaries. Any mention to reservations is mute because this is a state issue, not the tribes....Checkerboarded land anyone?... since the land this initiative is affecting is private property aka deeded "fee" lands within the exterior boundary of a reservation...not affecting tribal owned lands, USA in trust lands, etc.

To address your concerns about private land owners (resident or not) getting a by-pass on the draw system and having a only tag..Lets look at the body of the initiative, especially stuff in bold/underline>
(7) Except when wildlife populations are in severe decline due to environmental factors such as disease or drought, the commission may not prohibit deer, elk, or black bear hunting with a state-issued license during a statewide general hunting season by a landowner meeting the requirements of 87-2-121(2). (7)(8)

." Section 2. Section 87-2-121, MCA, is amended to read: "87-2-121. Lawful method of hunting on landowner's private property. In recognition of the inalienable right of persons to acquire and possess property in all lawful ways contained in Article II, section 3, of the Montana constitution and of the heritage of individual citizens to harvest wild game animals contained in Article IX, section 7, of the Montana constitution; (1) a landowner and a landowner's guests and lessees may hunt on the landowner's private property as long as the hunting is conducted in the manner provided by law and is consistent with regulations on means of take and bag limits; and (2) except to protect wildlife populations under 87-1-301(7), hunting regulations may not impose or effect a prohibition on a landowner hunting deer, elk, or black bear on the landowner's private property with a state-issued license if: (a) the hunting is conducted during general hunting season with a state-issued license in the manner provided by law and regulation pertaining to means of take and bag limits; and (b) the landowner is licensed to hunt, having paid the base hunting license fee, and attained a conservation license and the state-issued license or licenses for hunting deer, elk, or black bear"

10000 character limit.. continue from above....
The non-resident land owner still has to purchase a non-resident license... There is a limited number of them of course., unless of course you hire an outfitter, then no limit on the number sold>>That is the way it is now<< "state issued license in the manner by law"... "Regulations pertaining to means of take and bag limits", takes care of the special draw areas. Means of take, requires you to hunt during an open season, with the proper equipment and license. A special permit is a license. You can research all of the MCAs with regards to licenses... but every line says (license or permits). They are legally the same. A permit is a license that gives you special treatment, that's all.
Since Montana is a small place, i was able to track down Rick Schoening, the person who is getting this initiative going, online and get his contact info and talk to him a bit about this.
It would be worth contacting him to get more insight.. email me for his phone number [email protected]
Agree or not, it would be worth listening to someone's perspective who was a MT FWP game warden for 28 years.
Would be worth discussing more that this initiative will unlock 3.3 million acres of deeded fee lands for landowners and nonlandowners to hunt on... Thank you for that. Because of my blood quantum, i will never be able to hunt within reservation boundaries so this is that mechanism i hope. p.s. check out this new law, the department will give land owners a FREE license!! 87-2-513 MCA.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Please educate me regarding tribal laws and regulations. Whether or not you may hunt on your private land within the border of a reservation is a question to be answered by tribal authority ... NOT through an initiative passed by non-tribal Montana citizens outside the reservation. Is that statement incorrect?
Please explain.

Still waiting for an answer.

 

[silencedogood]

Please educate me regarding tribal laws and regulations. Whether or not you may hunt on your private land within the border of a reservation is a question to be answered by tribal authority ... NOT through an initiative passed by non-tribal Montana citizens outside the reservation. Is that statement incorrect?
Please explain.

to answer your question, I would first go to MT cadastral and look at what land that the tribes have authority on which is tribal owned land, USA in trust land. This border is not some wall where everything in this wall is dictated by a domestic dependent nation, however, a checkerboard of private deeded fee land, tribal owned land, USA in trust land.

I would ask this question to answer your question..If i am a non-tribal member hunting on private "deeded" fee land abiding by all Montana laws/regulations/season(not tribal land) with proper permit/licenses and get cited by a tribal game warden..what happens to me? Since i am not tribal, i can not get punished/tried by tribal government which would then be sent to non-tribal government (the respective montana county). Since i followed all Montana laws/regulations/season and had proper permits/licenses, i did nothing unnlawful so nothing would be done to me in a montana county court. Lots of gray area being a non-tribal member owning land.hope this helps.

 

[silencedogood]

Montana v. United States. 1981 SCOTUS decision.

Cross-posting a bit...but with that decision, I can't quite get this petition.

more discussion for sure...I read it as the key in that decision is fee lands...with that you'd think you would be able to hunt on your "fee land"..but not the case since the 50s. Hence the initiative

 

[Straight Arrow]

to answer your question, I would first go to MT cadastral and look at what land that the tribes have authority on which is tribal owned land, USA in trust land. This border is not some wall where everything in this wall is dictated by a domestic dependent nation, however, a checkerboard of private deeded fee land, tribal owned land, USA in trust land.

I would ask this question to answer your question..If i am a non-tribal member hunting on private "deeded" fee land abiding by all Montana laws/regulations/season(not tribal land) with proper permit/licenses and get cited by a tribal game warden..what happens to me? Since i am not tribal, i can not get punished/tried by tribal government which would then be sent to non-tribal government (the respective montana county). Since i followed all Montana laws/regulations/season and had proper permits/licenses, i did nothing unnlawful so nothing would be done to me in a montana county court. Lots of gray area being a non-tribal member owning land.hope this helps.

Once you use the term "if" and then answer a question with a question ... your credibility is gone!

 

[WanderWoman]

Agree or not, it would be worth listening to someone's perspective who was a MT FWP game warden for 28 years.

I doubt many MT game wardens are claiming him as “one of them” right now. And the perspective of “I’m not allowed to do something so I’m going to change the law, implications be damned” is kind of antithetical to what it means to be a good warden. Kind of embarrassing really.

 

[silencedogood]

Once you use the term "if" and then answer a question with a question ... your credibility is gone!

Ok..how about... This scenario has already happened in 2019 on the CSKT rez and played out exactly.

 

[silencedogood]

I doubt many MT game wardens are claiming him as “one of them” right now. And the perspective of “I’m not allowed to do something so I’m going to change the law, implications be damned” is kind of antithetical to what it means to be a good warden. Kind of embarrassing really.

contact your county prosecutor (granted they have experience in this type of law) and ask about the implications. Knowledge is power.

 

[Big Fin]

You still have not provided anything that shows how this is restricted to only lands within reservation boundaries. And, it seems you don’t realize under Montana (MCA) law and our Administrative Rules (ARM) that there is a big distinction between a Permit and a License.

I’m suggesting you go hire legal counsel, like I always do, and see what they tell you. The free advice from your county prosecutor has proven nothing to dispel what I stated in the video or what I posted here last night. I get your passion for this topic, but an initiative written this poorly is a dead horse for your cause.

I wish you luck and I hope you get to hunt your land in the future.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Ok..how about... This scenario has already happened in 2019 on the CSKT rez and played out exactly.

"Please educate me regarding tribal laws and regulations. Whether or not you may hunt on your private land within the border of a reservation is a question to be answered by tribal authority ... NOT through an initiative passed by non-tribal Montana citizens outside the reservation. Is that statement incorrect?"
That is a yes or no question. So please answer the question .... then explain after.

 

[ismith]

"Please educate me regarding tribal laws and regulations. Whether or not you may hunt on your private land within the border of a reservation is a question to be answered by tribal authority ... NOT through an initiative passed by non-tribal Montana citizens outside the reservation. Is that statement incorrect?"
That is a yes or no question. So please answer the question .... then explain after.

No, you may not. Also, you do not own that land.

 

[Straight Arrow]

No, you may not. Also, you do not own that land.

Huh?

 

[ismith]

Huh?

Sound it out.

 

[idahohuntr]

more discussion for sure...I read it as the key in that decision is fee lands...with that you'd think you would be able to hunt on your "fee land"..but not the case since the 50s. Hence the initiative

Right, but the state of Montana, as a result of litigation from CSKT has an agreement that prohibits big game hunting by state licensed hunters within the reservation. They cooperatively manage fishing and bird hunting. Both Montana and CSKT claimed jurisdiction within the exterior bounds of the reservation - the Tribe stated its treaty gave it exclusive control of ALL hunting/fishing within the reservation. The State argues they have jurisdiction within the reservation on all non-members hunting non-tribal lands.

So - if this ballot initiative passes, you'd certainly see a resumption of legal action by CSKT and termination of the cooperative agreement. Reading Montana v. United States and the CSKT treaty - I can tell you why both parties entered into a joint agreement...both could see a scenario where they lose and precedent is established limiting their jurisdiction permanently.

A state ballot initiative would not do anything for hunting within a reservation on fee lands if federal courts decide in CSKT favor. So, even if the proposed ballot were limited to reservation boundaries, there's still a chance it does nothing. However, as currently written, it's worse than nothing because it causes so much potential damage for the rest of the state...unless you are in the 'bulls for billionaires club'.

I'm still undecided if this initiative was put together by very uninformed people - or if its a more nefarious chess move on the part of those who'd like to privatize public resources.

 

[YoungGun]

Agree or not, it would be worth listening to someone's perspective who was a MT FWP game warden for 28 years.

...Because Wardens haven't gotten mixed up in Tribal disputes before.

"Dashboard video shows the September 2014 detention of Montana Game Warden Dirk Paulsen. Tribal officials from the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation were enforcing an order barring Fish, Wildlife and Parks personnel from traveling across tribal lands. The tribe extended that resolution to private, non-reservation lands owned by the tribe."

@silencedogood - the intent of the initiative may come from a good place, but the wording misses the mark and opens up a can of worms legally. As someone who works with county prosecutors day to day, I can assure you that I, personally, am not taking the interpretation of one of them to hold much water. One would need to instead look at the implications of the initiative and how the Montana Supreme Court could interpret the extremely open and vague wording of this.

You seem passionate about this- get involved in a manner that re-writes this in a much more narrow and specific manner and addresses your specific issues- if a ballot measure can truly address the issues presented of tribal sovereignty.