Montana Already Has What Colorado Voters Just Rejected

While I spend most of my free time (too much) hunting and fishing, I’m always interested in hearing ideas on ways to protect our hunting and Fishing traditions. Colorado recently had a chance to place a constitutional provision for hunting and fishing on their ballot.

On Nov. 3rd, Colorado voters considered Proposition No. 83, which aimed to make hunting and fishing constitutional rights in Colorado. But, since this question is being posed at the same time as many of us are going on our fall hunts in Montana, I couldn’t help but wonder if we will be voting on a similar issue in the near future. As it turns out, Montana’s residents already enjoy the benefit of having these rights protected nearly two decades earlier.

Montana Already Protects Hunting and Fishing

When considering potential changes to our hunting and fishing practices, one may not realize that Montana has already made hunting and fishing constitutional rights. That’s because over 80 percent of Montana voters voted to amend our state’s constitution to provide protections for our hunting and fishing tradition in 2004.

SteveOehlenschlager

Since then, Article IX, section 7 of the Montana Constitution provides the ability to harvest wild fish and game animals as part of our natural heritage. This does not mean you can disregard all of the rules regarding hunting and fishing. We still have hunting seasons, fishing licenses, regulated hunting areas, and private property rights. However, providing constitutional protection to ensure that future generations are able to continue harvesting wild animals is very unique.

Why Colorado Wanted to Change Its Constitution

The reason why Colorado voters were asked whether they wanted to add hunting and fishing rights to their state constitution was primarily based upon a controversy in 2019. There was a push by animal welfare groups to restrict hunting and trapping of mountain lions and bobcats in Colorado. Some hunters expressed concern that restricting hunting these types of wildlife would open up possibilities for even more restrictive measures on the type of wildlife Montanans are allowed to hunt.

Stephen Schauer

Supporters claimed that making hunting and fishing rights constitutional provisions would provide long-term protection for those activities. Opponents contended that doing so would create additional problems for wildlife managers, limiting the options available to voters.

Ultimately, Colorado voters decided not to support this measure.

Could Montana Strengthen Its Hunting Rights?

Another aspect of this debate that makes it interesting is that Montana has provided constitutional protections for hunting and fishing for nearly 2 decades longer than Colorado.

While Montana preserves the right to harvest fish and game animals, Colorado's proposal stated that hunting and fishing were preferred methods of managing wildlife populations.

ElviK

Could Montana someday consider adding similar language? It's certainly an interesting hypothetical, although there's no indication that such a proposal is currently headed for our ballot.

Personally, I believe that Montana voters understood the value of protecting our hunting and fishing traditions well before Colorado residents had a similar opportunity. For many of us, hunting and fishing represent far more than simply hobbies. They represent family traditions that allow us to take care of ourselves by putting food on the table and give us reasons to spend more time outdoors.

GeorgeRudy

I am eager to hear the thoughts of fellow Montanans who share similar passions for hunting and angling. Should Montana strengthen its current constitutional protections for hunting and fishing, or did voters get it right when they amended the Montana Constitution in 2004?