Post by: vermonster13 on October 11, 2006, 05:24:00 PM
"Most hunters and anglers don't know that under Montana law, if they are convicted of littering, they forfeit their licenses and the privilege to hunt, fish, camp or trap for one year from the date of the conviction," said Jim Kropp, FWP Enforcement Division Chief.
For sportsmen, this littering law has real teeth. It applies to any holder of a Montana resident or nonresident fishing or hunting license or camping permit convicted of littering campgrounds, public or private lands, streams, or lakes while hunting, fishing or camping.
"Most sportsmen are very conscientious about protecting our resources and packing out whatever they pack in," Kropp said. "But the fact is, in Montana the privileges of hunting, fishing and camping are significant and a person can lose them, if they're careless.
Post by: JC on October 11, 2006, 07:52:00 PM
I love Montana, but sounds like they are plagued with the same idiotic bureaucracy as everywhere else. I agree with the principal of punishing littering, but this sounds like a loophole to remove hunters from the field. (shotgun shells you forgot to pick up after duck hunting, a lost arrow, dropped granola bar wrapper etc.)
!["[dntthnk]"]("graemlins/dntthnk.gif" "\"\"")
Post by: DTS on October 11, 2006, 08:56:00 PM
Post by: Texasrecurve on October 12, 2006, 08:36:00 PM
Post by: swp on October 12, 2006, 09:55:00 PM
Post by: vermonster13 on October 12, 2006, 10:14:00 PM
Post by: KodiakBob on October 14, 2006, 10:47:00 AM
Post by: EDW on October 14, 2006, 09:35:00 PM
"Sportsmen" litter the woods & waters. It's terrible. I constantly find junk left behind in old blinds and in parking areas that shouldn't be left to just blow around and trash the woods.
Post by: wapiti on October 15, 2006, 12:03:00 AM
Others thoughts?
Post by: EDW on October 15, 2006, 12:14:00 PM
Post by: swp on October 15, 2006, 08:53:00 PM
If you saw some of the most beautiful places in the Ozarks cluttered up with trash, not only from hunters and fishermen, you might want a law like this also. Enforcement of it would be another matter entirely though.
Post by: vermonster13 on October 15, 2006, 08:58:00 PM
Post by: AZStickman on October 15, 2006, 09:38:00 PM
I don't necessarily agree with this law but last time I looked I didn't find the hunting ammendment in the constitution.... It is a priveledge and not a right and therefore we must be even more vigilant for laws like this and fight to protect our priveledge even more vigorously....... I'm glad we finally have a forum for this type of discussion and thank David for being in the fore front on informing us of what's happening...... We all need to learn from his example or more laws like this one will slip into effect while we are sleeping at the wheel........Every legislature has a website and it's easy to see what bills are being introduced each session..... One guy can't do it for all of us....... Terry
Post by: EDW on October 15, 2006, 10:14:00 PM
Post by: vermonster13 on October 16, 2006, 07:44:00 AM
I do fishing clinics every year. At the end of the clinic I take the group fishing. First thing we do is collect all the trash in the area before we even wet a line. I try my best to teach good stewardship in the fishing clinics and bowhunter safety course.
Post by: JC on October 16, 2006, 08:37:00 AM
And then of course, there's the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" angle....covers a lot of ground, and justly so.
David, the potential for abuse of this law is what frightens me...singling out the very group of people who pay to keep most of this land public access is just a side irony.
Post by: vermonster13 on October 16, 2006, 10:15:00 AM
Post by: EDW on October 16, 2006, 10:19:00 AM
Post by: JC on October 16, 2006, 11:30:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by EDW:But what if the law is enacted as a political agenda....in this case, specifically targeting one segment of society while not transferring the same law to other segments smacks of something less than genuine concern over the problem. Like just about everywhere else, there is little need for more laws, but enforcement for the laws that already exist. I'll bet there's already multiple laws on the books in Montana that target litter in general.....
The fact a law has been enacted to police this indicates to me a problem already exists.
Post by: vermonster13 on October 16, 2006, 11:46:00 AM
Post by: EDW on October 18, 2006, 07:03:00 PM
Any proof that it was? The original thread includes- campers, trappers,fishermen and hunters while participating in those activities. I may me wrong but I do not think a littering ticket you might get for throwing a paperwad on a lawn in town while not hunting etc.. gets you suspended. If any Montanans are out there maybe they can check & clarify. I'd like to ask this: Is there any excuse at all for trashing the woods where you & others hunt and fish? Supposedly we're the ones that love and want to protect the outdoors so why would anyone want to litter?. If you have the energy to tote in a can of pop & a sandwich in your pack why can't you take the can & wrapper out?
Post by: vermonster13 on October 18, 2006, 07:06:00 PM
Post by: EDW on October 19, 2006, 07:31:00 PM
The concerns and worries about this to me are really far fetched. for comparison recently on certain Michigan rivers authorities had increased patrols and enforcement of laws due to unruly people swearing, getting drunk and otherwise getting out of control while canoeing and tubing. Does this unfairly target this group? No it targets the rowdies that get out of hand & ruin things for others. If this law in Montana is on the books it's simple to me- DON'T LITTER!!!! Same with hunting out season, poaching, not tagging you aniimal if required by law or anything. I don't think any game warden is going to plant a candy wrapper to bust someone- wow that will make the front page. :D
Post by: vermonster13 on October 19, 2006, 08:16:00 PM
Post by: Walt Francis on October 21, 2006, 01:19:00 PM
Walt Francis
Post by: JC on October 21, 2006, 02:42:00 PM
But specifically targeting one segment IS wrong. The penalty ought to be equal, whomever is doing it. With this stupid law, there is no recourse if a Warden catches a non-hunter/fisher littering. And if there is, why not just enforce that existing law? I'm sure there's already laws on the books that say don't litter.
Post by: wapiti on October 21, 2006, 03:40:00 PM
I have personaly experianced over bearing and zealous law enforcement. I even had a chance to talk with several local guys about what had happened to me. They laughed and said join the club as this guy was an #&&. I say was because he retired as of this year.
Another point is this may be a state law but littering on federal lands is a federal law. I think the littering thing has been covered already. We need something diffrent for ALL violators.
I am in agreement we need a law equal for all.
Post by: motormouth on October 21, 2006, 05:02:00 PM
Post by: motormouth on October 21, 2006, 05:03:00 PM
Post by: EDW on October 22, 2006, 10:56:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Walt Francis:
Hey guys, the law has been on the books since the mid 1990's, and it works really well. For clarification, the law states they "MAY" loose their huntng and fishing privilages, not will. Final punishment or fines are either determined by the local justice of the peace, judge, or by jury. If you visited the state before the law was enacted then visited it recently, you would see the difference it made in cleaning up public lands. I hate to admit it, but there were a lot of slob/littering hunters and fishermen in Montana before the law was enacted. Like JC, I dislike increased laws and regulations, but something was needed and most inprotantly "IT WORKS". Though not perfect, there is a distinct diference in the amount of litter I see while hunting and fishing now compared to the early 1990's. As a side note, I would also like to see a simular law for the drivers in our state, the largest source of currently.
Yeah :thumbsup: to that!!!!!
Walt Francis
Post by: John Dill on October 23, 2006, 03:33:00 PM
Post by: et on October 24, 2006, 01:15:00 PM
Post by: vermonster13 on October 24, 2006, 09:01:00 PM
Post by: Brian Krebs on October 27, 2006, 01:21:00 AM
Here in Idaho; there was an attempt to clarify that hunting was a right- it only failed because the child support 'people' wanted the right to take away the priviledge of hunting if a person didn't pay their child support.
I think 500 dollar fines for littering are enough; and that taking away hunting 'priviledges'is too much.
I don't believe hunting has anything to do with the act of littering; and the two: have no business being connected that way.
Hunters may litter; but a litter bug does not have to be a hunter.
And toilet paper left behind.. [do pardon the pun]-- IS considered litter by the forest service.. all depends on where you live; and the enforcement policies.....
Post by: Bob Sherman on November 10, 2006, 12:59:00 PM
I haven't heard of one hunter ever losing their license for littering.
Post by: AZStickman on November 10, 2006, 01:23:00 PM
Quote
"Terry, just because it's not listed in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right. Yes, it is a right, even if the liberals don't agree with it. I'm of Native American heritage....my people hunted and fished and trapped long before their were ever petty laws to regulate it. To me, activities such as this done before the advent of laws are a right, not priveledges."I'd like to be able to agree with you JC.... I'd like even more for hunting to truly be a right but it is not and never will be.......It is a highly regulated priveledge and one I hold highly and do not abuse.......Even though you have a native american heritage hunting is not a right even on the sovereign nations.....Even there it is a highly regulated priveledge....It may have been a right until mankind developed the capability of wiping out whole species and modern conservatation programs had to be developed to protect a piece of the heritage we all share..... No matter where your ancestors are from all of our lineages go back to hunter gatherers.... Right?? Wrong???..... I don't know I just live with the reality and get out and enjoy the priveledge every chance I get..... Terry
Post by: MI_Bowhunter on November 10, 2006, 01:41:00 PM
These types of laws could eventually add up and make it impossible to hunt, without us ever actually losing the right/privilege to hunt. That's what scares me about it.
Post by: Rigs on November 12, 2006, 04:19:00 PM
I've been places here in Montana that I know hunters were the only other people that had any reason to be there. And like Wapiti, I've carried out more crap (mountain to the prairies) than a big bear can jump over. Just the other day while scouting an Island on the Missouri, I came across an old ameristep blind that the elements had hammered, orange trail tape, a milk crate that was used in the remnants of that blind, old broken down hang-on stands still swinging by their chains in the tree, pop cans, beer cans, and candy wrappers. So you tell me this wasn't "hunters" that littered this pretty piece of Montana? Who else would use this stuff??
If the shoe fits......I think the penalties are right, I just wish that they would actively seek stiffer penalties for this lazy individual that calls his/herself a hunter. It may help thwem clean up their act... If you take away their drivers liscense(as was suggested), they can still hunt. Take away their hunting and watch them clean up their mess next time.....
Happy hunting,
Jason
Post by: vermonster13 on November 12, 2006, 05:56:00 PM
Post by: Al Dean on November 13, 2006, 07:59:00 AM
Post by: gordonf on November 13, 2006, 03:06:00 PM
Post by: mindbender on November 13, 2006, 07:13:00 PM
Know of a couple cases of fraud where mom got services from several states at the same time and dad- who was paying support had to pay back all of them and even went to prison cause he couldn't.
every state should 1. have a right to hunt and drive provision (can lose this right like any other due to behavior like DUI etc)2. A big fine ($1500 or so) for atv's off road and intentional littering.
I thought states were passing right to hunt amendments???? Didn't MT? Many NA do have solid rights with exception to self regulation which has been the case within tribes forever anyway.
Post by: Pete Patterson on November 16, 2006, 07:46:00 PM
Post by: mindbender on November 17, 2006, 01:16:00 AM