HELENA — During a preliminary vote on Friday, the state House approved a measure that would revise the definitions of game animals, including placing fur-bearing species under that umbrella.

The bill expands the definition of “game animals,” creating a new category for big-game animals and placing it under the broader game animal definition, along with upland game birds, migratory game birds and fur-bearing animals.

The definition of “predatory animals” also would be expanded to include badgers, raccoons and red foxes. Defining them as such would allow farmers and ranchers to kill those animals to protect their livestock, prompting concerns from conservation groups that it would open to the door to unfettered slaughter.

Sponsor Sen. Jennifer Fielder, R-Thompson Falls, said during the bill’s March 17 committee hearing that this change would also allow trappers to sell the pelts of those animals, which is prohibited under current statute.

Rep. Bob Brown, R-Thompson Falls, carried Senate Bill 334 in the lower chamber, arguing that revisions were overdue to clarify conflicting rules on how Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks regulates game.

“This will not change which animals can be harvested, or by what means, but what it will do is provide some clarity and consistency,” Brown said.

Opponents responded that management would indeed change — although they conceded the exact impacts of the 37-page bill were difficult to know — and noted that the changes were not sanctioned by the state wildlife agency.

“Fish, Wildlife and Parks was never involved in the writing of this bill or the crafting of this bill,” said Rep. Jean Price, D-Great Falls. “The department has found a number of unintended consequences and will likely continue to find them.”

Rep. Kelly Flynn responded that the agency had been asked to bring amendments to address their concerns and had done so.

Rep. Ed Lieser, D-Whitefish, objected to grouping fur-bearers under game animals, which he said could carry broad implications given Article IX of the state Constitution, which in part states that “the opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall be forever preserved to the citizens of the state.”

According to Lieser, “That is a very significant change that we need to consider.” 

Lieser was among several opponents to the bill who said its impacts to state game management were too unclear to support.

“That’s why we have three pages of this bill stricken,” responded Brown, referring to amendments brought by the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee that included striking proposed language to restrict the state game agency’s ability to take some management actions including game checks and population estimates of non-big game animals.

He added that the state currently loses out on restitution fines for poachers who kill animals not currently listed as “game animals,” and the broadened definition would change that.

The measure passed 53-47 and faces a final House vote. It passed the Senate 30-20 on Feb. 25.

Reporter Samuel Wilson can be reached at 758-4407 or by email at swilson@dailyinterlake.com